Obama Disses Lincoln

The Coffee Shop
1

Barack Obama reportedly will say this in an upcoming issue of Time magazine about Abraham Lincoln:

“I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator,” Obama said. “As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African-American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice.”

Here is an excerpt from the EP:

“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.”

I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a “clarion call” to me. Can a Democrat just not admit ANYTHING good about a Republican president, even if it was 142 years ago?

2

Obama just delivered the commencement speech at Knox, talks about Abe Lincoln here:

http://www.knox.edu/x9803.xml

“Today, on this day of possibility, we stand in the shadow of a lanky, raw-boned man with little formal education who once took the stage at Old Main and told the nation that if anyone did not believe the American principles of freedom and equality, that those principles were timeless and all-inclusive, they should go rip that page out of the Declaration of Independence.”

I think this is where the initial quote came from:

http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/local/11992619.htm
.

3

Is he wrong?

I might be a little nicer to Lincoln, but that could simply be the result of me being a reformed white Southerner and not a black person from the North. I won’t presume to think that our motivations should match when evaluating the moral quality of historical figures.

4

Not trying to hijack the thread, I swear, but when was it that the parties did the old switcheroo? I thought at some point the Democratic party really stood for modern Republican ideals, and vice versa.

Am I making this up or what? And I don’t really know how to Google for something this odd.

5

Abraham Lincoln left the Whig party because it could not agree that slavery should be abolished while this was one of the founding principles of the new Republican party. For much of his public life, Abraham Lincoln was a vocal opponent of slavery (in, for example his debates with Douglas). As President, he transformed a war that began as simply suppressing an internal rebellion into a war that ended slavery in this nation. The Emancipation Proclamation was one of the documents by which President Lincoln accomplished this end.

I have no problem with analyzing the public lives of historical figures to see what we can learn and how we can do things better. Here, however, Senator Obama is simply revealing that he is a political hack of limited understanding instead of the type of outstanding political and moral leader that President Lincoln was. Maybe, instead of reviewing his newspaper clippings, Senator Obama should bother to learn some history.

6

Not trying to hijack the thread, I swear, but when was it that the parties did the old switcheroo?

During the burgeoning civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

7

Actually, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plus, it was, of course, Democrats that filibustered things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A better question is when did the Civil Rights movement decide to abandon things like judging people by the content of their character and start judging them by the color of their skin.

8

Wrong. More Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. All the Governors standing in the schoolhouse doors barring blacks from entering “white” schools were Democrats (e.g., Lester Maddux, George Wallace, et alia).

9

And guess where all those ‘Democrats’ ended up after Nixon’s southern strategy…

10

I think more D’s voted for the CRA1964, but that a greater percentage of R’s voted in favor.

11

Weren’t they call DIXIE-crats? I think there’s a substantive difference if so.

Any label you want to use their “cause” was of hate and non-tolerance.

12

You guys are telling me that transition periods take more than a couple of years!? NO!

The simple fact is that the switch started during the Civil Rights movement. It’s not that there was a prime directive and people went and scratched the letters off their doors and put “D” where “R” once was (and vice versa), it’s that the Republican political strategy moved south/rural (while maintaining capitalista support) and the Democrat strategy moved urban.

It’s not rocket science.

13

Wrong again. Nixon signed more civil rights legislation into law than any other president. So, tell me how racism was part of his “southern strategy.”

14

So “south/rural” equals racist or anti-civil rights while “urban” equals pro-civil rights?

15

Another large factor is the demographic shifts that took place over the last 40 plus years. The South of today is far different from the South of the 1950s. The vehement segregationists have long since passed away, and there has been a tremendous influx of new “Southerners”, who had grown up in the northern rust belt and moved South to a growing sector of the economy. Most “Southerners” have never lived in a state where there was de iure segregation and are primarily concerned with things like earning a living and defending the country.

16

Wrong again. Nixon signed more civil rights legislation into law than any other president. So, tell me how racism was part of his “southern strategy.”

What the hell do you mean “wrong again”? Wrong about what, specifically? Did I say that Nixon didn’t sign more civil rights legislation into law than any other president?

No.

Did I even use the word “racism”?

No.

You have to prove me wrong on something before saying I’m wrong. That’s how it works.

So “south/rural” equals racist or anti-civil rights while “urban” equals pro-civil rights?

You really do need to calm down. Seriously, you’re just pulling phantom arguments out of thin air and screeching madly. Calm down.

Rural Southern voters are against things like affirmative action, while urban voters are not.

This really is not complicated. It might piss you off, but it’s not complicated.

17

“The vehement segregationists have long since passed away”

Not passed away, just not as loud.

18

Sorry, I think the thread has been hijacked.

19

Barack Obama reportedly will say this in an upcoming issue of Time magazine about Abraham Lincoln:

“I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator,” Obama said. “As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African-American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice.”

Here is an excerpt from the EP:

“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.”

I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a “clarion call” to me. Can a Democrat just not admit ANYTHING good about a Republican president, even if it was 142 years ago?

From the National Archives:

"Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom."

Sounds like they tend to agree with Obama. Of course, the people who wrote that for the National Archive web site are nothing but political hacks who know nothing about history either, right CTL?

20

“Rural Southern voters are against things like affirmative action, while urban voters are not.”

Okay–now you have hit the nail on the head. You have exposed the crux of the issue.

You equate “affirmative action” with “civil rights.” People have been programmed to believe they are one and the same. They are not. Affirmative Action is an entitlement program–and one thats’ premise is to take in order to give. So now, someone who votes against AA is automatically a racist or against civil rights? Democrats and the press have done a great job of convincing the Democrat base of this. You vote against increased budgets or for increased oversight over welfare, Head Start, AA, etc., you are a racist. Last I looked in the Constitution (2 minutes ago) these programs were not listed among the civil rights. When did civil rights became just another entitlement program?