PDA

View Full Version : Declaration of Independence: Promissory Note


coberst
7th April 2008, 02:57 PM
Declaration of Independence: Promissory Note

In the matter of slavery Lincoln was the basic politician. On this very important issue he was difficult to pin down on specifics. He was quite capable of leaving any audience with the impression that he, Lincoln, agreed with him, the voter, whatever was his view.

One could parse his various speeches and determine the nub of his thinking if one tried hard enough. Regarding the matter of slavery Lincoln did not favor bringing about a society wherein there was social and political equality of the races. He did not favor making voters or jurors of Negroes. Nor did he favor intermarriage.

Lincoln reasoned that there was a basic difference between the races. He accepted the basic prejudice of his times that the white race was superior to the black. However, he did not think this meant that the black man be denied everything.

Lincoln was a politician who could reason his way to a fundamental position, a position in which he knew exactly what the truly important issue was and was willing to give ground on less important issues to gain acceptance of this fundamental issue, the nub of the matter. He was noted, in his law practice, of concentrating fiercely on the main point at issue and to concede ancillary matters as required.

Regarding Negro intellectual ability Lincoln was an agnostic. This was a popular “liberal” view that there was no way to prove the difference in intellect between white and black and thus Lincoln refused to allow this matter to become entangled with the very practical matter of political equality. Nevertheless Lincoln was convinced that it was wrong to treat any human being as property.

Lincoln further reasoned that if the black man owns himself he thus is entitled to the product of his labor. Lincoln often quoted the biblical text “in sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” as the sardonic right of the Negro. This was a telling argument because of the adherence to the bible that was characteristic of so many Americans. Lincoln constantly argued that one couldn’t own human beings and one should not be in a position to be king over human beings.

The Declaration of Independence became a tactical weapon for Lincoln as a means around the prejudice of the population. The population in general was prejudiced in favor of slavery and also prejudiced in favor of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln attempted to convince them, in various round about ways, that for consistency sake they must abandon one prejudice or the other. Senator Douglas argued that such a choice was not necessary. Douglas argued that the Constitution countenanced slavery and the Constitution, not the Declaration, was the law of the land.

It is at this point that Lincoln set up the statement that the Declaration was a statement of a permanent ideal of American democracy and that the Constitution represented a “first cut” at the practical implementation of that ideal. The Declaration was a metaphysical statement of what our democracy must strive for even though we may never exactly meet our ideal.

Lincoln felt that the Declaration established an ideal for all men and that all men should attempt to establish a government that attempts, even though unsuccessful, to meet that ideal. The Declaration is a pledge “to all people of all colors everywhere”.

Quotes from “Lincoln at Gettysburg” by Garry Wills

scameter
7th April 2008, 03:23 PM
I find it funny that since Lincoln freed the slaves, people just readily forget the fact that during his presidency he commissioned many missions to go slaughter Native Americans and steal their land from them. Such a hero. No, he was a politician. He did whatever was popular at the time to remain popular himself.

coberst
7th April 2008, 08:46 PM
scameter

I suspect that if you were to read more American history you might change your mind.

scameter
8th April 2008, 02:42 PM
Actually, I originally assumed, like everyone else, that Lincoln was an entirely good man, but after me reading American history as I was forced to do in school, I learned the true side of him.

coberst
8th April 2008, 04:40 PM
scameter


Our school daze are dominated by learning interested knowledge. Interested knowledge is that learned as a means to an end. In school we learn because we are forced to learn. I think that we can only understand anything, especially history, when we learn it as disinterested knowledge. Disinterested knowledge is that acquired simply because we are interested in learning and understanding, not as a means to an end but as an end in itself.

This quotation of Carl Rogers might illuminate my meaning of disinterested knowledge.

I want to talk about learning. But not the lifeless, sterile, futile, quickly forgotten stuff that is crammed in to the mind of the poor helpless individual tied into his seat by ironclad bonds of conformity! I am talking about LEARNING - the insatiable curiosity that drives the adolescent boy to absorb everything he can see or hear or read about gasoline engines in order to improve the efficiency and speed of his 'cruiser'. I am talking about the student who says, "I am discovering, drawing in from the outside, and making that which is drawn in a real part of me." I am talking about any learning in which the experience of the learner progresses along this line: "No, no, that's not what I want"; "Wait! This is closer to what I am interested in, what I need"; "Ah, here it is! Now I'm grasping and comprehending what I need and what I want to know!"

scameter
9th April 2008, 02:34 PM
I didn't learn what I did about Lincoln through school. I learned it through my own personal study, so please don't assume I do something because in your bias you believe your views to be ultimately and irrefutably true. If you would like the source of my view, please read the book, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee. That should show you the less-than-popular side of Lincoln.

coberst
9th April 2008, 03:43 PM
Actually, I originally assumed, like everyone else, that Lincoln was an entirely good man, but after me reading American history as I was forced to do in school, I learned the true side of him.

Your post seems to contradict you later statement.

scameter
9th April 2008, 04:43 PM
I'm sorry you're mistaken, I'll try to clarify. When I said, I got what I know of Lincoln from American history, and me then saying I had to look beyond the American history I learned in school. My point there was that school only teaches you the good side of Lincoln, with school's own version of history, but to see the full, true side of American history, one must study the subject itself for oneself.