Talk:Abraham Lincoln and slavery/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Abraham Lincoln and slavery. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

I've seen this here & in the Lincoln article

Lincoln believed that African-Americans were entitled to "natural rights" as declared in the Declaration of Independence, but not necessarily civil or political rights,

Can anyone elaborate? Don't all rights flow from natural rights, according to theory at the time?--JimWae 05:29, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Lincoln's speech on 8/17/58 says this, distinguishing political rights (i.e. things like voting and serving on juries) from natural rights.

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

I added this quote into the article itself, so that should resolve any problemsRangerdude 07:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

The simple statement that Lincoln's views on slavery and race are inconsistent is a matter of fact, not a POV. A POV is something that gets disagreed about and is normally an opinion of some sort. With Lincoln though it is widely acknowledged that he took the different views discussed in this article on slavery. It is also widely admitted that he was NOT a complete abolitionist and often did things that were contrary to abolition (like preventing his generals from freeing slaves early in the war). Acknowledging those facts to be true and then using weasil words to get around stating the obvious consequence of them - Lincoln's inconsistency - makes for a weak article whose body (which contains extensive evidence of Lincoln's inconsistencies) is itself inconsistent with its header (which dances around the issue via weasil words). If it looks and quacks like a duck call it a duck.Rangerdude 18:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

- Inconsistent perhaps to hobgoblins. Facts are statements "almost universally" agreed upon. Many people do NOT think it was inconsistent to oppose slavery yet say the constitution prohibits its non-voluntary abolition by the federal gov't - To attribute inconsistency in the same sentence as that is presented is clearly POV

Name-calling is a POV, Jim. Inconsistency, or the lack of consistency, is defined as the absence of uniformity and congruence between successive events. When applied to a person's beliefs it means simply that he changed his position (or flip flopped) on the issue he is said to be inconsistent on. Lincoln very clearly changed his mind on slavery, going from a willingness to tolerate it where it existed and only oppose it in the territories to becoming an outright supporter of emancipation. Thus he was NOT a consistent advocate of abolition in his lifetime, making him inconsistent.Rangerdude 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Lincoln was accused of being inconsistent in his position on slavery. To this day, there are disputes over the consistency of the following views he held at one time or another.

• He believed that slavery was a profound evil that must not be spread to the territories — yet he was willing to tolerate it in the states in which it already existed.
• He believed the federal government did have power to bar slavery in the territories — yet he maintained that the federal government did not possess the constitutional power to bar slavery in states where it already existed.
• He was willing to tolerate slavery in the states in which it already existed — yet he later advocated its complete abolition.
• The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves where the measure could not be put into effect — yet left them enslaved where the measure could have been enforced.
• He believed that the Declaration of Independence's statement that "all men are created equal" should have been applied also to black slaves and that they had an inalienable right to liberty — but he did not believe that freed black slaves should live in the same society as white Americans with all the same rights as white American citizens.

Some of these opposing views are fairly easily shown to be not inconsistent at all. --JimWae 18:25, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

That list is very incomplete. It is inescapable though that Lincoln moved from opposing slavery only in the territories to favoring its outright abolition. Thus his position in 1861 is not in congruence with his position in 1865, and that is the very definition of inconsistency.Rangerdude 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It is less POV to say there is a debate about how consistent his views are than to say that he WAS inconsistent - especially when that claim is made in a sentence that also introduces something that clearly is NOT inconsistent.

If his views can be shown to be consistent, they are not inconsistent. To insist on your wording is to insist on presenting an agenda as fact. --JimWae 19:41, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC).

Then the question is to WHAT DEGREE was he inconsistent, not whether he was inconsistent at all. By indicating that there is disagreement over the extent of his inconsistency you necessarily admit that there was SOME inconsistency in what he did and said (and that much is obvious considering that he changed positions on slavery from opposing it in the territories to full abolition). Furthermore, that *some* of his views can be shown consistent does NOT prove that all of them are consistent. It only takes one example of him changing positions (and indisputably he that did on abolition - a very major issue) to show inconsistency. Whether or not he was inconsistent beyond that is debatable, but that is all a question of degree. Rangerdude 19:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You know, people's opinions do change over time. In fact they are always changing. This harping on about inconsistancy seems a bit silly when, because most it is taking place over years, 'development' is probably a better way to describe it. Additionally, the man WAS a politician, and a fairly canny one at that, something which would certainly color how he pitched things to the public and detractors, which would also explain changes in public statements over time (i.e. adjusting to the public mood). Novium 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite the claim by RangerDude that there is no "POV" expressed in what he wants the article to say, I actually see two different POVs about Lincoln and slavery:

1. That Lincoln was not opposed, or only mildly opposed to slavery
2. That Lincoln was opposed, or mostly opposed to slavery - but recognized the limits of his power to abolish it

I don't think that Wikipedia should endorse either #1 (which is what RD seems to be saying) or #2 (which happens to be what I personally believe). Rather, the article should (A) report every relevant statement by Lincoln about whether slavery is good or bad, and (B) report the interpretations and viewpoints of historians and scholars about the controversy over how much and/or when Lincoln ever opposed or favored slavery. --Uncle Ed 20:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim - You are making edits to the colonization section that are your own personal speculation and some that are simply not true at all. This suggests to me that either you are advancing a viewpoint, or you are unfamiliar with the historical material about this subject and thus should not be editing it until you familiarize yourself to a more thorough degree. Let's consider your edits:

1. "After the setbacks in Panama and Haiti, there were no active plans for colonization for over a year."

This is simply not true. The Panama and Haiti plans fell through in 1862 and 1863, but the Colonization Office under Mitchell remained open and active throughout the next year. Mitchell issued a colonization report to Lincoln dated June 1864, and this was in response to a resolution by the Senate in March 1864 seeking to formulate colonization policy.

2. "Lincoln was in the process of renewing plans for colonization on a smaller scale during his second term."

This is pure speculation on your part. We do not know whether Lincoln's second term colonization plan would've been on a "smaller scale" than the first or the exact details of how they were going to do it. Butler says that Lincoln planned to enlist every ship in the navy for the transport, which I don't think is small scale by any measure.

3. " - either forgotten about or ruled out as unworkable."

Again this is blind speculation on your part. Butler was forming the plan when Lincoln died. Lincoln also had an agent down in Colombia at the time of his death to make negotiations there. But when the assassination happened everything stopped. Butler ceased pursuing the plan and the diplomat was recalled to Washington. The plan simply was abandoned. No evidence exists though that it was deemed "unworkable."

Rangerdude 19:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• the "forgotten about" is speculation that has been there for months. Colonization was abandoned not because it was forgotten, but because it was unpopular & unworkable.

No Jim. It was abandoned because the most powerful and prominent advocate of it - Lincoln - died. Different presidents have different agendas, but Johnson never said "Lincoln's colonization plan can't be done so we're dropping it." It simply wasn't a priority anymore.

• read the link in article for evidence of abandonment by Lincoln

That article doesn't offer much of any evidence of abandoning anything - only a vague diary entry with no context or specifics. The records of Congress, however, are very clear that in March 1864 the Senate inquired about colonization and in June 1864 Mitchell gave Lincoln a report on it.

• sending some troops to Panama is smaller scale than sending 4 million out of the country

--JimWae 19:41, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Butler indicates that the troops - which numbered in the hundreds of thousands - were to be sent first. He hints that their families would've followed, but since the policy was never developed due to Lincoln's death, we'll never know the exact extent. Also, sending several hundred thousand troops to Panama is also a LARGER scale than the Haiti colony, which was to have only 5,000 at first with only 450 in the first group of settlers.Rangerdude 19:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am curious as to why there's no mention of his meetings with Fredrick Douglass, as reported by Fredrick Douglass in his memoirs. There are definitely sections of that which shed some light on (or at least add to) the issue. Novium 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now there is no source for the statement in the article that Lincoln's intention before the war was to make slavery exctinct.--JimWae 21:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Lincoln came to national prominence as an enemy of the Slave Power, vowing to stop its expansion and put it on a course to extinction. The challenge of course, was how to do it"

The 2nd sentence is too much like editorial comment. --JimWae 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

good point--I fixed it. Rjensen 21:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln was known for his moderate views on slavery - where is the source that he "came to national prominence ... by vowing to... put it on a course to extinction"? --JimWae 00:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln wanted to end slavery (1858: "A house divided can not stand!") see Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President by Harold Holzer (2004). He was moderate in that he wanted to end it gradually. Rjensen 00:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does he "vow ... to put it on a course of extinction"? That speech is, iirc, short on a plan of action --JimWae 04:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He vowed to stop its expansion. As Gienapp (2002) noted re Peoria speech: "Restricting slavery would lead to its eventual demise as the Fathers intended, Lincoln insisted." (p 52). "I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free,” Lincoln in 1858 proclaimed. “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 course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new—North as well as South.” [Gienapp 60] Rjensen 06:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The opening sentence of this article seems odd. What exactly is supposed to be surprising about Lincoln's position? I'm not sure what a good opening sentence would be, though. --Allen 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should take a stand on whether Lincoln was:

1. pro-slavery
2. sometimes for it, and sometimes agin' it
3. anti-slavery

There is a dispute among historians and some other scholars about what Lincoln's "real position" on slavery was. Some say it evolved; others that it changed. Let's not take sides in this dispute.

But let's also not leave out his many antislavery and pro-abolition remarks. Give the reader every relevant quote (and action) of Lincoln, and let the reader decide for himself.

For example:

• "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."

More examples are easy to find. --Uncle Ed 20:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My personal view is that Lincoln hated slavery a lot but loved the Union even more. He used the following metaphor:

By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb.

He seems to liken the Union to "a life" and Abolition to "a limb". Faced with any choice of one or the other Lincoln insisted on the former, i.e. "life" or the Union. Thus he seems to have ranked the two great issues of his time in order as follows:

1. Preserve the Union
2. Abolish slavery

Like a drowning man, who would also like to save wallet of gold coins: but faced with a choice of saving his life or trying (but taking a terrible risk of failing) to save both; abandons the heavy gold coins to swim to safety.

This is only my personal view, so I hesitate to add it to the article. Wikipedia is no place for original research or analysis. But what have historians or others written about this? --Uncle Ed 14:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Many people think he was an abolitionist, because he did in fact end up abolishing slavery. He was anti-slavery his entire career, but he did not advocate making slavery completely illegal everywhere in the US until much later on. His vision was to stop the expansion of slavery, which he (& others) figured would result eventually in its abolition. He did not think that it could be ended by federal laws outlawing slavery (believing the Constituion protected slavery - and even supported the proposed Corwin Amendment making the protection more explicit). He had to be relying on other methods (voluntary changes by states because of economic results & ethical arguments) to bring slavery to a complete end. --JimWae 21:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Look here mac, yes Lincoln did counter the remarks from the Lincoln Douglas in his first inauguration speech. You need to read the speech closely

Because you say so? The First Inaugural had an entirely different purpose than anything Lincoln discussed in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The reference in the L-D quote is to social and political equality of free blacks in Illinois as a counter to charges by Douglas. The First Inaugural refers specifically to slavery in the South and his position that he cannot legally end it. Comparing the two in the context you have chosen and saying one statement somehow "counters" the other makes no logical sense. Tom (North Shoreman) 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln and most Republicans believed that if slavery could not expand it would eventually die. They pledged to stop its expansion. Very similar to containment policy re Soviet Union in Cold War. Rjensen 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the issue you raised. I am not sure what, if anything, it has to do with my criticism of the addition made by this particular editor. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the following that you added after my last comment:

Lincoln did however counter these remarks in his First Inaguration Address, when he claimed, regarding the statements, that "I had recanted them." Lincoln also stated that the statements he made in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates were "Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

You have claimed that Lincoln said “I had recanted them”. In fact this sentence never occurs, although Lincoln uses the phrase “had never recanted them” in the third paragraph that you referred to. A little further he also says referring to the same set of statements “I now reiterate these sentiments.” Furthermore Lincoln does not say that the section you quoted was in fact from the Lincoln-Douglas debates – if you have a source that says this was Lincoln’s intention, then you need to produce it. In fact, as Lincoln specifically says, the phrase comes from the Republican platform. As I said earlier, the section from the Lincoln-Douglas debate that you have attached your comparison to is unrelated to the issue of the legality of slavery where it already exists. Furthermore, you have added your comments inappropriately to an indented block quote. I suggest if you really want to include something about the First Inaugural in the article that you start a separate paragraph in a different section of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is unsourced & dubious. "Slavery in the White House" mentions Washington to Taylor - there is no source for more than that. Such slaves were owned by the president. Lincoln did not own slaves - --JimWae 21:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Eleanor Alexander, Georgia Institute of Technology, "Slaves in the White House." This topic for a monograph examines the lives, culture, and experiences of slaves who lived and worked in the Executive Mansion, from George Washington to Zachary Taylor. Scholarly attention to the topic has been scant. Alexander takes on the challenge of documenting the lives of enslaved domestic staff removed from plantation culture to the urban environment of the nation's capital. In addition, she will examine the reaction from domestic and international figures to the use of slaves in the President's House, a weighty republican symbol

Per "Always There: The African-American Presence in American Quilts", by Cuesta Benberry it states "When Sojourner Truth met with Lincoln, Mr. Lincoln was not himself with this colored woman, he had no funny story for her, he called her aunty, as he would his washer woman, and when she complimented him as the first Anti-slavery President, he said, 'I am not an Abolitionist; I wouldn't free the slaves if I could save the union in any other way. I am obliged to do it.'" Maryland was also neutral and had slaves within the state. Maryland was omitted from the Emancipation Proclamation but abolished slavery during the Civil War. Sites to verify statements are http://www.historyofquilts.com/keckly.html and http://www.answers.com/topic/border-states-civil-war. Per the web site http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/unhonestabe.htm it states "Lincoln abolished slavery, however, his proclamation only applied to a small section of the South which was declared in rebellion against the United States and under the control of the Confederate Army. Slavery remained legal in every other State that previously allowed it. Slaves continued to work at the White House and the white Indentured Servant business flourished. Lincoln even went as far as using the Union military to protect the Slave Trading Businesses of the North after the Civil War ended." Based on this information I believe that slaves did indeed reside in the White House when Lincoln was President. Chris-Tennessee

Wake up Chris. You echo your source and claim "Lincoln even went as far as using the Union military to protect the Slave Trading Businesses of the North after the Civil War ended." A little bit of actual research would tell you that Lincoln lacked the opportunity to do that -- surely you've heard of John Wilkes Booth? Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what those "Slave Trading Businesses of the North active after the Civil War ended" were? Tom (North Shoreman) 11:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Mrs. Lincoln and Mrs. Keckly: The Remarkable Story of the Friendship Between a First Lady and a Former Slave (Hardcover) - by Jennifer Fleischner
• Some sources you cite look to be hate-Lincoln sites --JimWae 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I eliminated this paragraph based on Michael Vorenberg's statement in "After Amancipation: Abraham Lincoln's Black Dream", a chapter in "Lincoln Revisited" edited by John Y. Simon, Harold Holzer, and Dawn Vogel. Vorenberg writes on page 217, "The last documented time that we hear Lincoln talking of colonization is to General Benjamin Butler in the spring of 1865. As most historians know, Professor Mark E. Neely showed that Butler's account of this meeting was a fabrication, thus getting Lincoln off the hook."

The Butler reference should not be replaced unless someone comes up with a reliable secondary source vouching for the accuracy of Butler's claims. Tom (North Shoreman) 22:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just got the current Winter 2008 issue of the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association. There's an article in there that adresses Butler. It shows Neely was in error. -BeastButler (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You can read the winter article here: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/29.1/magness.html It says that there was a meeting between Butler and Lincoln but that Butler's account includes distortions, that we won't ever really know what happened, and that the proposals of colonization came from Butler (according to Butler's own account) and not Lincoln. Lincoln only indicated his willingness to speak with Butler. We won't ever know if this was a polite no thank you or a serious wish to discuss the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SemiCharmedQuark (talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Those who accuse Lincoln of inconsistancy on slavery while he was President need to be reminded of the historical fact that Roger Taney (who gave us the Dred Scott Decision) was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court well into Lincoln's term as President. Lincoln knew full well that should he seek any alteration in slavery in the Union a lawsuit would immediately be filed with the Taney court and the results would be far worse for slaves than the law prior to such a suit. In fact when Roger Taney died he had prepared a memorandum with his decision should such a suit be filed. Lincoln's wise restraint prevented that memorandum from ever becoming law.

Anyone who doubts the consistancy of Lincoln's opinion should bear in mind that one of the last things he wrote was the 13th Amendment to the Constitition, the document that did in fact outlaw slavery. 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)John Rydberg

He appointed James Mitchell as his Commissioner of Emigration to oversee colonization projects from 1861 through 1865. In 1862, Lincoln convened a colonization conference at the White House where he addressed a group of freedmen and attempted to convince them to support his policy.^{[citation needed]} Between 1861 and 1862 Lincoln actively negotiated contracts with businessmen to colonize freed blacks to Panama and to a small island off the coast of Haiti. The Haiti plan collapsed in 1862 and 1863 after swindling by the business agents responsible for the plan, prompting Lincoln to send ships to retrieve the colonists.^{[citation needed]} The much larger Panama contract fell through in 1863 after the government of Colombia backed away from the deal and expressed hostility to colonization schemes.^{[citation needed]}

Well citations have been requested for 30 months. Some of this is probably based on facts. Anyone got refs? Right now the Colonization section is too brief & omits all difficulties encountered.--JimWae (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this here & in the Lincoln article

Lincoln believed that African-Americans were entitled to "natural rights" as declared in the Declaration of Independence, but not necessarily civil or political rights,

Can anyone elaborate? Don't all rights flow from natural rights, according to theory at the time?--JimWae 05:29, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Lincoln's speech on 8/17/58 says this, distinguishing political rights (i.e. things like voting and serving on juries) from natural rights.

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

I added this quote into the article itself, so that should resolve any problemsRangerdude 07:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

The simple statement that Lincoln's views on slavery and race are inconsistent is a matter of fact, not a POV. A POV is something that gets disagreed about and is normally an opinion of some sort. With Lincoln though it is widely acknowledged that he took the different views discussed in this article on slavery. It is also widely admitted that he was NOT a complete abolitionist and often did things that were contrary to abolition (like preventing his generals from freeing slaves early in the war). Acknowledging those facts to be true and then using weasil words to get around stating the obvious consequence of them - Lincoln's inconsistency - makes for a weak article whose body (which contains extensive evidence of Lincoln's inconsistencies) is itself inconsistent with its header (which dances around the issue via weasil words). If it looks and quacks like a duck call it a duck.Rangerdude 18:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

- Inconsistent perhaps to hobgoblins. Facts are statements "almost universally" agreed upon. Many people do NOT think it was inconsistent to oppose slavery yet say the constitution prohibits its non-voluntary abolition by the federal gov't - To attribute inconsistency in the same sentence as that is presented is clearly POV

Name-calling is a POV, Jim. Inconsistency, or the lack of consistency, is defined as the absence of uniformity and congruence between successive events. When applied to a person's beliefs it means simply that he changed his position (or flip flopped) on the issue he is said to be inconsistent on. Lincoln very clearly changed his mind on slavery, going from a willingness to tolerate it where it existed and only oppose it in the territories to becoming an outright supporter of emancipation. Thus he was NOT a consistent advocate of abolition in his lifetime, making him inconsistent.Rangerdude 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Lincoln was accused of being inconsistent in his position on slavery. To this day, there are disputes over the consistency of the following views he held at one time or another.

• He believed that slavery was a profound evil that must not be spread to the territories — yet he was willing to tolerate it in the states in which it already existed.
• He believed the federal government did have power to bar slavery in the territories — yet he maintained that the federal government did not possess the constitutional power to bar slavery in states where it already existed.
• He was willing to tolerate slavery in the states in which it already existed — yet he later advocated its complete abolition.
• The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves where the measure could not be put into effect — yet left them enslaved where the measure could have been enforced.
• He believed that the Declaration of Independence's statement that "all men are created equal" should have been applied also to black slaves and that they had an inalienable right to liberty — but he did not believe that freed black slaves should live in the same society as white Americans with all the same rights as white American citizens.

Some of these opposing views are fairly easily shown to be not inconsistent at all. --JimWae 18:25, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

That list is very incomplete. It is inescapable though that Lincoln moved from opposing slavery only in the territories to favoring its outright abolition. Thus his position in 1861 is not in congruence with his position in 1865, and that is the very definition of inconsistency.Rangerdude 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It is less POV to say there is a debate about how consistent his views are than to say that he WAS inconsistent - especially when that claim is made in a sentence that also introduces something that clearly is NOT inconsistent.

If his views can be shown to be consistent, they are not inconsistent. To insist on your wording is to insist on presenting an agenda as fact. --JimWae 19:41, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC).

Then the question is to WHAT DEGREE was he inconsistent, not whether he was inconsistent at all. By indicating that there is disagreement over the extent of his inconsistency you necessarily admit that there was SOME inconsistency in what he did and said (and that much is obvious considering that he changed positions on slavery from opposing it in the territories to full abolition). Furthermore, that *some* of his views can be shown consistent does NOT prove that all of them are consistent. It only takes one example of him changing positions (and indisputably he that did on abolition - a very major issue) to show inconsistency. Whether or not he was inconsistent beyond that is debatable, but that is all a question of degree. Rangerdude 19:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You know, people's opinions do change over time. In fact they are always changing. This harping on about inconsistancy seems a bit silly when, because most it is taking place over years, 'development' is probably a better way to describe it. Additionally, the man WAS a politician, and a fairly canny one at that, something which would certainly color how he pitched things to the public and detractors, which would also explain changes in public statements over time (i.e. adjusting to the public mood). Novium 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite the claim by RangerDude that there is no "POV" expressed in what he wants the article to say, I actually see two different POVs about Lincoln and slavery:

1. That Lincoln was not opposed, or only mildly opposed to slavery
2. That Lincoln was opposed, or mostly opposed to slavery - but recognized the limits of his power to abolish it

I don't think that Wikipedia should endorse either #1 (which is what RD seems to be saying) or #2 (which happens to be what I personally believe). Rather, the article should (A) report every relevant statement by Lincoln about whether slavery is good or bad, and (B) report the interpretations and viewpoints of historians and scholars about the controversy over how much and/or when Lincoln ever opposed or favored slavery. --Uncle Ed 20:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

More accurately, Lincoln struggled with slavery and white supremacy. I would not say he was inconsistent. He believed the spread of slavery was morally wrong. He believed that African Americans deserved to be free, yet married into a slave holding family. Lincoln was not an abolitionist. As far as his presidency goes he was the first anti-racist President. He may have excluded blacks from migrating into Illinois while he was with the state legislature. This was before he was the Great Emancipator. Like Jefferson, Lincoln could not resolve democracy with slavery completely. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Jim - You are making edits to the colonization section that are your own personal speculation and some that are simply not true at all. This suggests to me that either you are advancing a viewpoint, or you are unfamiliar with the historical material about this subject and thus should not be editing it until you familiarize yourself to a more thorough degree. Let's consider your edits:

1. "After the setbacks in Panama and Haiti, there were no active plans for colonization for over a year."

This is simply not true. The Panama and Haiti plans fell through in 1862 and 1863, but the Colonization Office under Mitchell remained open and active throughout the next year. Mitchell issued a colonization report to Lincoln dated June 1864, and this was in response to a resolution by the Senate in March 1864 seeking to formulate colonization policy.

2. "Lincoln was in the process of renewing plans for colonization on a smaller scale during his second term."

This is pure speculation on your part. We do not know whether Lincoln's second term colonization plan would've been on a "smaller scale" than the first or the exact details of how they were going to do it. Butler says that Lincoln planned to enlist every ship in the navy for the transport, which I don't think is small scale by any measure.

3. " - either forgotten about or ruled out as unworkable."

Again this is blind speculation on your part. Butler was forming the plan when Lincoln died. Lincoln also had an agent down in Colombia at the time of his death to make negotiations there. But when the assassination happened everything stopped. Butler ceased pursuing the plan and the diplomat was recalled to Washington. The plan simply was abandoned. No evidence exists though that it was deemed "unworkable."

Rangerdude 19:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• the "forgotten about" is speculation that has been there for months. Colonization was abandoned not because it was forgotten, but because it was unpopular & unworkable.

No Jim. It was abandoned because the most powerful and prominent advocate of it - Lincoln - died. Different presidents have different agendas, but Johnson never said "Lincoln's colonization plan can't be done so we're dropping it." It simply wasn't a priority anymore.

• read the link in article for evidence of abandonment by Lincoln

That article doesn't offer much of any evidence of abandoning anything - only a vague diary entry with no context or specifics. The records of Congress, however, are very clear that in March 1864 the Senate inquired about colonization and in June 1864 Mitchell gave Lincoln a report on it.

• sending some troops to Panama is smaller scale than sending 4 million out of the country

--JimWae 19:41, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Butler indicates that the troops - which numbered in the hundreds of thousands - were to be sent first. He hints that their families would've followed, but since the policy was never developed due to Lincoln's death, we'll never know the exact extent. Also, sending several hundred thousand troops to Panama is also a LARGER scale than the Haiti colony, which was to have only 5,000 at first with only 450 in the first group of settlers.Rangerdude 19:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am curious as to why there's no mention of his meetings with Fredrick Douglass, as reported by Fredrick Douglass in his memoirs. There are definitely sections of that which shed some light on (or at least add to) the issue. Novium 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now there is no source for the statement in the article that Lincoln's intention before the war was to make slavery exctinct.--JimWae 21:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Lincoln came to national prominence as an enemy of the Slave Power, vowing to stop its expansion and put it on a course to extinction. The challenge of course, was how to do it"

The 2nd sentence is too much like editorial comment. --JimWae 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

good point--I fixed it. Rjensen 21:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln was known for his moderate views on slavery - where is the source that he "came to national prominence ... by vowing to... put it on a course to extinction"? --JimWae 00:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln wanted to end slavery (1858: "A house divided can not stand!") see Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President by Harold Holzer (2004). He was moderate in that he wanted to end it gradually. Rjensen 00:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does he "vow ... to put it on a course of extinction"? That speech is, iirc, short on a plan of action --JimWae 04:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He vowed to stop its expansion. As Gienapp (2002) noted re Peoria speech: "Restricting slavery would lead to its eventual demise as the Fathers intended, Lincoln insisted." (p 52). "I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free,” Lincoln in 1858 proclaimed. “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 course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new—North as well as South.” [Gienapp 60] Rjensen 06:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The opening sentence of this article seems odd. What exactly is supposed to be surprising about Lincoln's position? I'm not sure what a good opening sentence would be, though. --Allen 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should take a stand on whether Lincoln was:

1. pro-slavery
2. sometimes for it, and sometimes agin' it
3. anti-slavery

There is a dispute among historians and some other scholars about what Lincoln's "real position" on slavery was. Some say it evolved; others that it changed. Let's not take sides in this dispute.

But let's also not leave out his many antislavery and pro-abolition remarks. Give the reader every relevant quote (and action) of Lincoln, and let the reader decide for himself.

For example:

• "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."

More examples are easy to find. --Uncle Ed 20:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read that Lincoln was a complicated person, therefore, I believe his views on slavery are not always clear. With that stated, Lincoln was never an abolitionist. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

My personal view is that Lincoln hated slavery a lot but loved the Union even more. He used the following metaphor:

By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb.

He seems to liken the Union to "a life" and Abolition to "a limb". Faced with any choice of one or the other Lincoln insisted on the former, i.e. "life" or the Union. Thus he seems to have ranked the two great issues of his time in order as follows:

1. Preserve the Union
2. Abolish slavery

Like a drowning man, who would also like to save wallet of gold coins: but faced with a choice of saving his life or trying (but taking a terrible risk of failing) to save both; abandons the heavy gold coins to swim to safety.

This is only my personal view, so I hesitate to add it to the article. Wikipedia is no place for original research or analysis. But what have historians or others written about this? --Uncle Ed 14:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Many people think he was an abolitionist, because he did in fact end up abolishing slavery. He was anti-slavery his entire career, but he did not advocate making slavery completely illegal everywhere in the US until much later on. His vision was to stop the expansion of slavery, which he (& others) figured would result eventually in its abolition. He did not think that it could be ended by federal laws outlawing slavery (believing the Constituion protected slavery - and even supported the proposed Corwin Amendment making the protection more explicit). He had to be relying on other methods (voluntary changes by states because of economic results & ethical arguments) to bring slavery to a complete end. --JimWae 21:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Historians refer to Lincoln as the "Great Emancipator", not the "Great Abolitionist". That is the difference. The Union was primary importance to President Lincoln. Out of military necessity, he emancipated the slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the difference between emancipation and abolition seems be more clear in your mind than in ours. Slavery in the US was abolished, as a result of the Civil War, so what's the difference? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Look here mac, yes Lincoln did counter the remarks from the Lincoln Douglas in his first inauguration speech. You need to read the speech closely

Because you say so? The First Inaugural had an entirely different purpose than anything Lincoln discussed in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The reference in the L-D quote is to social and political equality of free blacks in Illinois as a counter to charges by Douglas. The First Inaugural refers specifically to slavery in the South and his position that he cannot legally end it. Comparing the two in the context you have chosen and saying one statement somehow "counters" the other makes no logical sense. Tom (North Shoreman) 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln and most Republicans believed that if slavery could not expand it would eventually die. They pledged to stop its expansion. Very similar to containment policy re Soviet Union in Cold War. Rjensen 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the issue you raised. I am not sure what, if anything, it has to do with my criticism of the addition made by this particular editor. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the following that you added after my last comment:

Lincoln did however counter these remarks in his First Inaguration Address, when he claimed, regarding the statements, that "I had recanted them." Lincoln also stated that the statements he made in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates were "Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

You have claimed that Lincoln said “I had recanted them”. In fact this sentence never occurs, although Lincoln uses the phrase “had never recanted them” in the third paragraph that you referred to. A little further he also says referring to the same set of statements “I now reiterate these sentiments.” Furthermore Lincoln does not say that the section you quoted was in fact from the Lincoln-Douglas debates – if you have a source that says this was Lincoln’s intention, then you need to produce it. In fact, as Lincoln specifically says, the phrase comes from the Republican platform. As I said earlier, the section from the Lincoln-Douglas debate that you have attached your comparison to is unrelated to the issue of the legality of slavery where it already exists. Furthermore, you have added your comments inappropriately to an indented block quote. I suggest if you really want to include something about the First Inaugural in the article that you start a separate paragraph in a different section of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is unsourced & dubious. "Slavery in the White House" mentions Washington to Taylor - there is no source for more than that. Such slaves were owned by the president. Lincoln did not own slaves - --JimWae 21:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Eleanor Alexander, Georgia Institute of Technology, "Slaves in the White House." This topic for a monograph examines the lives, culture, and experiences of slaves who lived and worked in the Executive Mansion, from George Washington to Zachary Taylor. Scholarly attention to the topic has been scant. Alexander takes on the challenge of documenting the lives of enslaved domestic staff removed from plantation culture to the urban environment of the nation's capital. In addition, she will examine the reaction from domestic and international figures to the use of slaves in the President's House, a weighty republican symbol

Per "Always There: The African-American Presence in American Quilts", by Cuesta Benberry it states "When Sojourner Truth met with Lincoln, Mr. Lincoln was not himself with this colored woman, he had no funny story for her, he called her aunty, as he would his washer woman, and when she complimented him as the first Anti-slavery President, he said, 'I am not an Abolitionist; I wouldn't free the slaves if I could save the union in any other way. I am obliged to do it.'" Maryland was also neutral and had slaves within the state. Maryland was omitted from the Emancipation Proclamation but abolished slavery during the Civil War. Sites to verify statements are http://www.historyofquilts.com/keckly.html and http://www.answers.com/topic/border-states-civil-war. Per the web site http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/unhonestabe.htm it states "Lincoln abolished slavery, however, his proclamation only applied to a small section of the South which was declared in rebellion against the United States and under the control of the Confederate Army. Slavery remained legal in every other State that previously allowed it. Slaves continued to work at the White House and the white Indentured Servant business flourished. Lincoln even went as far as using the Union military to protect the Slave Trading Businesses of the North after the Civil War ended." Based on this information I believe that slaves did indeed reside in the White House when Lincoln was President. Chris-Tennessee

Wake up Chris. You echo your source and claim "Lincoln even went as far as using the Union military to protect the Slave Trading Businesses of the North after the Civil War ended." A little bit of actual research would tell you that Lincoln lacked the opportunity to do that -- surely you've heard of John Wilkes Booth? Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what those "Slave Trading Businesses of the North active after the Civil War ended" were? Tom (North Shoreman) 11:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Mrs. Lincoln and Mrs. Keckly: The Remarkable Story of the Friendship Between a First Lady and a Former Slave (Hardcover) - by Jennifer Fleischner
• Some sources you cite look to be hate-Lincoln sites --JimWae 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe most black historians consider Lincoln a civil rights [an anti-racist] President. I admit that there is some controversy on Lincoln freeing the slaves because he had to save the Union. Lincoln did not consider himself an abolitionist. Lincoln was a moderate. Lincoln was in favor of the 13th Amendement that abolished slavery in all the United States. The one meeting with Sojourner Truth is revealing concerning Lincoln's views on blacks. He was born in Kentucky, a slave state. I admit I find things difficult in determining Lincoln's true motivation for the Emancipation Proclamation. Even if true he did not want to free the slaves, he did anyway. The Union had to be saved by ending slavery, in essence. His treatment of Sojourner Truth is perplexing. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I eliminated this paragraph based on Michael Vorenberg's statement in "After Amancipation: Abraham Lincoln's Black Dream", a chapter in "Lincoln Revisited" edited by John Y. Simon, Harold Holzer, and Dawn Vogel. Vorenberg writes on page 217, "The last documented time that we hear Lincoln talking of colonization is to General Benjamin Butler in the spring of 1865. As most historians know, Professor Mark E. Neely showed that Butler's account of this meeting was a fabrication, thus getting Lincoln off the hook."

The Butler reference should not be replaced unless someone comes up with a reliable secondary source vouching for the accuracy of Butler's claims. Tom (North Shoreman) 22:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just got the current Winter 2008 issue of the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association. There's an article in there that adresses Butler. It shows Neely was in error. -BeastButler (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You can read the winter article here: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/29.1/magness.html It says that there was a meeting between Butler and Lincoln but that Butler's account includes distortions, that we won't ever really know what happened, and that the proposals of colonization came from Butler (according to Butler's own account) and not Lincoln. Lincoln only indicated his willingness to speak with Butler. We won't ever know if this was a polite no thank you or a serious wish to discuss the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SemiCharmedQuark (talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Historians debate when Lincoln actually dropped colonization, if he ever did, and I believe would be a good question at the reference desk. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the reference desk: Abraham Lincoln and African American colonization policy Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Those who accuse Lincoln of inconsistancy on slavery while he was President need to be reminded of the historical fact that Roger Taney (who gave us the Dred Scott Decision) was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court well into Lincoln's term as President. Lincoln knew full well that should he seek any alteration in slavery in the Union a lawsuit would immediately be filed with the Taney court and the results would be far worse for slaves than the law prior to such a suit. In fact when Roger Taney died he had prepared a memorandum with his decision should such a suit be filed. Lincoln's wise restraint prevented that memorandum from ever becoming law.

Anyone who doubts the consistancy of Lincoln's opinion should bear in mind that one of the last things he wrote was the 13th Amendment to the Constitition, the document that did in fact outlaw slavery. 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)John Rydberg

He appointed James Mitchell as his Commissioner of Emigration to oversee colonization projects from 1861 through 1865. In 1862, Lincoln convened a colonization conference at the White House where he addressed a group of freedmen and attempted to convince them to support his policy.^{[citation needed]} Between 1861 and 1862 Lincoln actively negotiated contracts with businessmen to colonize freed blacks to Panama and to a small island off the coast of Haiti. The Haiti plan collapsed in 1862 and 1863 after swindling by the business agents responsible for the plan, prompting Lincoln to send ships to retrieve the colonists.^{[citation needed]} The much larger Panama contract fell through in 1863 after the government of Colombia backed away from the deal and expressed hostility to colonization schemes.^{[citation needed]}

Well citations have been requested for 30 months. Some of this is probably based on facts. Anyone got refs? Right now the Colonization section is too brief & omits all difficulties encountered.--JimWae (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this article needs a rewrite. Since Lincoln is the great Emancipator, I believe this is as important as a Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. Did Lincoln change his views on slavery? He tried to win the Civil War without emancipating the slaves at first. The Border states did not get there slaves freed. He was concerned the border states would rebel. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What specifically would you want to change? Also note that if the Union were NOT preserved, the EC would have accomplished nothing at all. The Constitution protected slavery & Lincoln, not being a dictator, had absolutely no power to free slaves in those states not in rebellion where slavery was illegal. The only legal way to end slavery required that the federal gov't have the authority to do it, so there was no real legal alternative but to have emancipation subordinate to the preservation of the Union--JimWae (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are just questions I believe could be addressed in the article. There are good things in the article. One focus would be on Lincoln's marriage in terms of domestic help. He had Irish and African American servants. One may have been an indentured servant. When his father-in-law died Lincoln had recieved profits from the sale of his father-in-laws slaves. I do not believe Lincoln changed his views on slavery, however, he became more vocal in 1854 after the Missouri Compromise was repealed. Another focus would be his congressional carreer. He authored a gradual emancipation plan with compensation. Lincoln always stressed slave owners needed compensation for freeing their slaves, even by 1865. Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners $400,000,000 for emancipation compensation. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it is important to mention that Lincoln had servants in Illinois, one may have been indentured. He did not have slaves in Illinois. When his father in law from Kentucky, a slave state, died, Lincoln received profit from the sale of slaves. Any objections to putting this in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Servants are not slaves. This article begins "Abraham Lincoln's position on freeing the slaves" and is primarily about his position regarding slavery. Biographical details such as you mention above are sketchy, scarce, and quite different from the topic of the article. I do agree more coverage of his views on compensated emancipation would be quite relevant--JimWae (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The title of the article is Abraham Lincoln and slavery. I believe this allows the inclusion of Lincoln and his family by marriage. If Lincoln received profits from the sale of his father-in-laws slaves, then I believe that is signifigant enough for the article. Indentured servants may have been "purchased" from one "owner" to another "owner". These servants were gauranteed freedom. Lincoln did not own slaves in Illinois. How much these servants were paid in coins, if any, I believe is relevant to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The following section title was in the article without development. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

On citizenship and on voting rights for blacks

It was removed by an IP vandal on 2011-OCT-09. I restored it--JimWae (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JimWae. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the original research and verification citations can be removed. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (September 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Archive 1" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (September 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Recent improvements have been made to the Abraham Lincoln and slavery article. What other areas can be covered to improve the article? How does the article look in current condition? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There's little to no coverage of Lincoln & the 13th Amendment--JimWae (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also missing: terms of his Reconstruction plans that included state acceptance of the abolition of slavery--JimWae (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JimWae. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, coverage of Lincoln's repeated opposition to slavery on moral grounds has been reduced to one sentence. --JimWae(talk) 20:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how much of the controversy over Lincoln's "real position" on slavery stems from the connotations of words. To be "an abolitionist" the mid-19th century was a problem for some people. So I wonder if Lincoln was using a sort of "stealth approach" of introducing his ideas. Sort of like "Not to interrupt but ..." when you interrupt someone. Or "I don't mean to criticize" when beginning a critical remark. I think there's a fancy Latin word for this in Rhetoric.

Let's explore how much support there is for any of the following views:

1. Lincoln always hated slavery, and when he became president he did what he could to eliminate it, while fully aware that slavery had near-majority support
2. Lincoln really only cared about keeping the Union together, despite having made some mild remarks disparaging the institution of slavery

Let's keep in mind the context of the dispute of Lincoln and slavery, i.e., the idea of "debunking the Founders". Many modern people say that the Founding was flawed (or even totally without value or "defective from the start") in that it failed to immediately provide full civil rights for all blacks. This view may be contrasted with the idea that the Founders were heroes who did more than anyone else in history to transition mankind from suffering the evils of Monarchy and Slavery than anyone else, before or after; that they created Democracy (arguably for the first time ever) as well as giving a mortal wound to slavery (i.e., the Constitution time limit of 20 years). The latter view is more sympathetic, and gives more credit to the Founders: i.e., who could rebel against the world's most powerful Empire ("the sun never sets, etc.") and abolish slavery in a single blow? Britain, despite its immense wealth and burgeoning democratic traditions, didn't simply abolish slavery because it was the right time, but because Abolitionsts like Wilberforce made them give it up.

To emphasize the pro-Founder viewpoint a bit more, there were currents in Britain as well as in the American colonies, that wanted freedom for everyone, i.e., democracy and no slavery. But these things Take Time, and the the two currents got different results at different rates. Wilberforce and his friends got slavery outlawed in Britain (and its Caribbean colonies) c. 1804, a full six decades before it was outlawed in the (former) American colony. Why the delay? The US was busy creating democracy, a brand new idea (or at least one never tried on a national level before; ancient Greece had rudiments of it, but it was restricted to an elite group, hence more of an oligarchy). No one is saying America created democracy out of whole cloth; rather they reaped where others had sowed and weaved the existing threads together, and "took arms to oppose a sea of troubles". That's a lot for one century!

There's also the argument that the Founders and their successors would not have been able to eliminate monarchy at all (i.e., establish the U.S.A.) without compromising on slavery so as to get South Carolina and Georgia on board.

I think Lincoln's statements on slavery have to be evaluated in the context of the issues outlined above. That's only my own opinion of course, so unless there are Reliable Sources outside of Wikipedia with the same concept of evaluating Lincoln's rhetoric I'm just wasting everyone's time. But I think there are. Please help me find them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe you will find any reliable sources that call Lincoln an abolitionist. There was a big difference between abolitionists and free soilers and Lincoln was firmly in the latter camp. Lincoln's views on the Founders and slavery is brought forth very directly in hisCooper Union Speech -- he made no effort to debunk them. He did take an expansive view of the DOI and "all men are created equal", but never went as far as Garrison or other abolitionists.

Lincoln spoke of America as "the last best hope" for democracy in the world, but this was more related to his opposition to secession than to his views on slavery. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln, as did Jefferson, believed that the freed blacks needed to be removed from the United States. I do not believe there is one statement from Lincoln that in any way disparages the Founding Fathers. Lincoln was firmly against the spread of slavery since he advocated white free labor. Lincoln married into a slave owning family. Lincoln stated that he Emancipated the slaves to preserve the Union. Lincoln's views on suffrage during the American Civil War morphed; having advocated limited suffrage for blacks. This article is on Lincoln's views on slavery. I am not sure how a discourse on Lincoln's views on the Founding fathers, other then Jefferson, needs to be in the article.Cmguy777 (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Emancipation section is missing references. The section appears to be in order, however, lacking any reference citations, there is no way to validate the narration. References need to be added to the Emancipation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln advocated or implemented anti-racist policies including the Emancipation Proclamation

How was that anti-racist? Slavery was economic not racist. A greater percentage of free blacks than whites in New Orleans owned slaves before the civil war. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free all the slaves, or give them citizenship, or protection against racism in any way, nor did it affect the slaves in the states that stayed part of the Union. It was a necessity of war, to eliminate the workforce of your enemy. Dream Focus 17:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That is cited to an article by Henry Louis Gates; editorial focus is on what reliable sources say, not on editor analysis.Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus to change something can be determined based on common sense. You don't have to mindlessly follow what a source says as though it was an absolute infallible fact. Dream Focus23:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

the Emanc Proc made it possible for blacks to become soldiers and thus help overcome racist allegations they were inferior. (so argues Oates: James Oakes (2008). The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics. p. 204. Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

But it wasn't passed for that purpose and wasn't an "anti-racist policy". The link shows the "second confiscation act" and congress changing the 1792 militia act that previously banned black soldiers, were responsible allowing black soldiers. And didn't the black soldiers still get paid less than the white soldiers did? Believing them capable of being soldiers, and believing them equal to white soldiers, are two different things. Dream Focus23:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Emancipation Proclamation was never passed by Congress. The Congressional laws that were passed did not free many slaves and did not produce black soldiers, but Lincoln's policies did so. Those policies made voting rights feasible, as Lincoln himself said. It was Congress, not Lincoln, that set the differential pay scales. The Confederates immediately saw that the Emanc Proc & black soldiers was a terrific blow to slavery & protested vehemently. Rjensen (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that this article Abraham Lincoln and slavery be put in chronological order. His pre Presidency and his Presidency are mixed up. I believe this is confusing to the leader. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

'Lincoln expressed his contemporary view...' - the view he held at that time, or the view shared by many of his contemporaries? Notreallydavid (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abraham Lincoln and slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090422072035/http://lkwdpl.org:80/WIHOHIO/linc-mar.htm to http://www.lkwdpl.org/WIHOHIO/linc-mar.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abraham Lincoln and slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24242

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Before the war Lincoln could not call for the immediate end to slavery because of the Constitution. When the wear started he asked the border states to buy out the slaves. David Zarefsky (2014). Political Argumentation in the United States: Historical and contemporary studies. John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 117. As professor Howard Jones says: "In the prewar period, as well as into the first months of the war itself....Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners." Howard Jones (2002). Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom: The Union and Slavery in the Diplomacy of the Civil War. U of Nebraska Press. p. 21-22. that is in the lede we have to keep his actions in sequence. and not ignore the early war years before the 13th amdt of 1865. That's why we can't jump from the 1850s to 1865 with this useless statement: "he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election." -- It suggests Lincoln wrote that 1864 platform and he did not do so. Rjensen (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Your last point is incorrect. It suggests his party wrote a platform, and he agreed with it. All of which is true. His party also of course nominated him, and he agreed with that too. The text did not jump, it spends several sentences talking about the early presidency and then brings it to the end. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

But it's not true. a) Foner Free Soil does not mention 1864--drop that. b) the 1864 platform did NOT call for immediately end of slavery--see text. its wording allowed for a gradual ending c) Lincoln had his own plan for ending gradually ending slavery in December 1864: he asked Congress to let it continue until 1900--not immediately abolish it. Donald Lincoln p 396 see also http://books.google.com/books?id=gVvZb5oeVtwC&pg=PA144 and http://books.google.com/books?id=Ycpgcw6g2ocC&pg=PT156 Rjensen (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

None of those are 1864. This is what Lincoln wrote to Congress in 1864:

"At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States passed the Senate, but failed for lack of the requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. Although the present is the same Congress and nearly the same members, and without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the present session. Of course the abstract question is not changed; but in intervening election shows almost certainly that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not. Hence there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better? It is not claimed that the election has imposed a duty on members to change their views or their votes any further than, as an additional element to be considered, their judgment may be affected by it. It is the voice of the people now for the first time heard upon the question. In a great national crisis like ours unanimity of action among those seeking a common end is very desirable—almost indispensable. And yet no approach to such unanimity is attainable unless some deference shall be paid to the will of the majority simply because it is the will of the majority. In this case the common end is the maintenance of the Union, and among the means to secure that end such will, through the election, is most dearly declared in favor of such constitutional amendment."

And this is what the party platform was:

3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, hostile to the principles of Republican Government, justice and the National safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic; and that, while we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the Government, in its own defense, has aimed a deathblow at this gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of Slavery within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States.

--Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Lincoln wanted gradual emancipation in Dec 1864 that could stretch out to 1900. see Donald p 396 http://books.google.com/books?id=lTQSlhUUEOQC&pg=PA396 2) the 1864 Natl Union platform did NOT call for immediate emancipation. It was fully compatible with Lincoln's plan. Only in Feb 1865 did Lincoln finally agree to immediate emanc via 13th amdent. Rjensen (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

No. The proposed amendment that he is urging Congress to pass in 1864 is the one that already passed the Senate, "abolishing slavery throughout the United States". The Senate had approved it on April 8, 1864. He expressly says, the election decided the issue.[1] The 1864 election in which he ran on the party platform, just as he did in the 1860 election, which decided no new slave states. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

OK I got it wrong. he asked for the 1900 date in Dec 1862, not 1864. sorry. Rjensen (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much, it happens. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abraham Lincoln and slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124125509/http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org:80/inside_search.asp?ID=156&subjectID=2&searchWord=Douglas to http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside_search.asp?ID=156&subjectID=2&searchWord=Douglas
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29503
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111203102303/http://www.theroot.com/views/was-lincoln-racist?page=0,0 to http://www.theroot.com/views/was-lincoln-racist?page=0,0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Abraham Lincoln and slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside_search.asp?ID=156&subjectID=2&searchWord=Douglas
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128073051/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jishs/101.3-4/adams.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jishs/101.3-4/adams.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407073213/http://www.ushistory.org/us/32b.asp to http://www.ushistory.org/us/32b.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.usconstitution.com/lincoln-douglasdebates1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29503
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theroot.com/views/was-lincoln-racist?page=0%2C0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705213950/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/25.1/guelzo.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/25.1/guelzo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abraham Lincoln and slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126164412/http://www.moore-warner.com/lincoln.php to http://www.moore-warner.com/lincoln.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110310170617/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/29.1/magness.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/29.1/magness.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821203318/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/5/berwanger.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/5/berwanger.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The vast majority of the works that are "not really quite cited" by being dumped willy-nilly into "Further reading" and "External links" should be cited inline in the article for encyclopedic material. This article is thin (despite the piles of over-quotation – some of these excessive block quotes need to be trimmed to about 1/3 their size), one-sided, and under-cited as it is. See WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE – these end-of-article sections are not for a bibliography and shopping list of every other book and paper and webpage ever written about Lincoln. Any of these sources that are already cited in footnotes should not be re-listed as further/external.

And this article badly needs a citation-style overhaul, to use short citations and then have a (cited, not dumping ground!) bibliography under it, so that works that our article cites repeatedly, like Foner's, are not given over and over and over again in long form. And there are numerous non-templated citations that need to be put into the same format as the majority of the cites, per WP:CITEVAR.

When it comes to randomly veering date formats, I already normalized them to one style (the common US one), per MOS:DATEVAR. Same goes for misuse of |author= (it is for organizational authors; individual use |first=, |last=. And I fixed several instances (there are surely more) of |publisher= being incorrectly used for the publication (that's |work= or one of its aliases like |website= or |journal=). And I fixed the block quotations to stop including the citations inside the quote as if they're part of the quoted material; citations go outside. And I identified a couple of broken citations with {{complete citation needed}}. And deleted some bogus "Further reading" entries (one an off-topic things about John Wilkes Booth, and another that was a useless micro-blurb with no author published by the utterly unreliable "The Aliens Did It All Channel". In all, I spent about two hours cleaning up a lot of mess in this article, but am pretty worn out, and probably only did 1/4 of the work that needs to be done (much less than 1/4 if you factor in actually using all the "further" sources to provide sourced content in the article, hopefully in a much more balanced manner).

Also, a whole lot of citations to Lincoln's own letters and other writings (at webpages that provide copies of these primary sources, not secondary-source analyses of and article about them) need to have |via= parameters identifying the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT source (e.g. a particular university library e-collection), rather than misusing |work= or |publisher= parameters (some university website is not the publisher of Lincoln's letters nor are they work in which Lincoln published them).

On the bias (WP:NPOV) matter: several notable authors have taken a dimmer view of Lincoln's track record on the issue. While they are a minority set of voices, given the lionizing "American legend of Lincoln" patriotic writers who dominate the subject, and cannot be given equal treatment by us (per WP:UNDUE), they're barely represented at all in this article, which verges on a hatchet job, and mostly seems not to have been seriously revised since a few bursts around 2008 and 2015. In a tiny bit of furtherance of this balance, I've removed patently promotional/attacking biased editorial commentary from the problematic "External links" section that was issuing personal opinions about the relative merits of several of these sources. See also WP:NOR, WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

the citations in the bibliography are not randomly dumped. I looked over several scholarly bibliographies and selected the titles that are most often cited. The goal here is to help readers do more specialized reading--for example a university student doing a class paper. Rjensen (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Forced into Glory § Balance: Conflict between Lincoln critics like Bennett, and critics of those critics.

The article (on a somewhat controversial biography of Abraham Lincoln) rarely has editors or even talk-page comments, so additional input is requested. PoV issues with our article have been pointed out since 2009, and the off-site academic controversy involving the book's notable author, Lerone Bennett Jr., and his views about Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation goes back to the 1960s.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed Lerone Bennett, repeated one idea over and over --in 1968 Bennett wrote, he [Lincoln] was the very essence of the white supremacist with good intentions, the embodiment of the American racist tradition. "Was Abe Lincoln a white supremacist?." Ebony 23 (1968): 36-37. However, few scholars support this in recent decades or have cited him seriously. On Bennett's flaws see John M. Barr, "Holding Up a Flawed Mirror to the American Soul: Abraham Lincoln in the Writings of Lerone Bennett Jr." Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 35.1 (2014): 43-65. online Ian Hunt said in 2017 that supporters of Bennett are "a small but highly vocal minority" see Wesley Moody et al eds. (2017). Seven Myths of the Civil War. p. 22. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help) Even Howard Zinn states: "Hence it was Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves." [Zinn, The Other Civil War: Slavery and Struggle in Civil War America (2011) p 2.] Douglas R. Egerton looks at the scholarship and finds no recent historian who supports Bennett: “A Measure Alike Military & Philanthropic”: Historians and the Emancipation Proclamation" Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (2013) online (if anyone needs a copy of one of these articles I can send it along-- email me at Rjensen@uic.edu) Rjensen (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Just putting an incomplete reading list here of books on the topic since Bennett (2000):

• Vorenberg, Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment (2001)
• Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, 1861–1865 (2001)
• Guelzo, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America (2004)
• Striner, Father Abraham: Lincoln’s Relentless Struggle to End Slavery (2006)
• Carnahan, Act of Justice: Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the Law of War (2007)
• Dirck, ed., Lincoln Emancipated: The President and the Politics of Race (2007)
• Holzer and Gabbard, eds., Lincoln and Freedom: Slavery, Emancipation, and the Thirteenth Amendment (2007)
• Frederickson, Big Enough to Be Inconsistent: Abraham Lincoln Confronts Slavery and Race (2008).
• Gates and Yacovone, eds. Lincoln on Race and Slavery. (2009)
• Foner, The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery (2010)
• Holzer, Emancipating Lincoln: The Proclamation in Text, Context, and Memory. (2012)

Perhaps other can add to it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

See also, Manisha Sinha, Did He Die an Abolitionist? The Evolution of Abraham Lincoln’s Antislavery[2] American Political Thought (2015) 4:3, 439-454. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The block quotation at footnote 143 had a "[sic]" after the word "suffer" in Lincoln's phrase "Your race suffer very greatly..." I think the [sic] is unnecessary. First, it suggests an error, rather than an intentional choice. That the use of plural verbs with the noun "race" was a deliberate choice on Lincoln's part is shown by the fact that, later in the same sentence, he again uses the plural verb "suffer" in reference to his own race ("ours"), and later in the same address, he uses the plural verb "are" in the sentence "Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people." Second, [sic] probably shouldn't be used with usages that were common at the time of the speech or writing. Although the word "race" is treated as a singular, collective noun in modern (American) usage, that usage does not appear to have been standard at the time Lincoln was speaking. Earlier presidents treated "race" as both singular and plural. [content warning: stuff that Andrew Jackson said about race] Compare Andrew Jackson, "Second Annual Message to Congress," December 6, 1830 ("...we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which WAS exterminated...") with Andrew Jackson, "Farewell Address," March 4, 1837 ("...this unhappy race--the original dwellers in our land--ARE now placed in a situation where we may well hope that THEY will share in the blessings of civilization..."). Lincoln was fairly consistent in his use of "race" as a plural noun. See Abraham Lincoln, "Reply to Judge Douglas at Chicago on Popular Sovereignty," July 10, 1858 ("Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race ARE to be treated with as much allowance as THEY ARE capable of enjoying..."); "Lincoln-Douglas Debate," October 15, 1858 ("Language is used not suggesting that slavery existed or that the black race WERE among us."). He wasn't entirely consistent in one later speech, he treated it first as singular, and then as plural. See "Speech to Indians," March 27, 1863 ("I can only say that I can see no way in which your race IS to become as numerous and prosperous as the white race except by living as THEY do, by the cultivation of the earth."). The Presidents who came immediately after Lincoln continued to use "race" as a plural noun. See Ulysses Grant, "Eighth Annual Message," December 5, 1876 ("...the emancipated race of the South would have Found there a congenial home, where THEIR civil rights would not be disputed and where THEIR labor would be so much sought after that the poorest among THEM could have found the means to go." and "I do not suppose the whole race would have gone, nor is it desirable that THEY should go."); Rutherford Hayes, "Inaugural Address," March 5, 1877 ("...problems of the gravest moment, to be dealt with by the emancipated race, by THEIR former masters..."); Rutherford Hayes, "First Annual Message," December 3, 1877 ("It may not be improper here to say that it should be our fixed and unalterable determination to protect by all available and proper means under the Constitution and the laws the lately emancipated race in the enjoyment of THEIR rights and privileges..."). Thus, treating "race" as plural was not clearly an error during this period. By the 1880s, presidents were starting to use "race" as a singular noun. See James Garfield, "Inaugural Address," March 4, 1881 ("The emancipated race HAS already made remarkable progress."; Grover Cleveland, "Second Annual Message," December 6, 1886 ("When the existing system was adopted, the Indian race WAS outside of the limits of organized States and Territories..."). This trend over time is consistent with changes in presidential usage of other terms, such as "United States." See https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1816 [NOTE: I used a corpus of presidential addresses to find these references, so I don't have a particular web source to cite. However, any of the quotations can be confirmed by googling as-is. Obviously I wouldn't be this half-assed about sourcing if any of this were going into the article... Longpreamble (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)