In a front-paged post on My Left Wing and in his own blog The Field Negro, Field Negro wrote a piece titled Uncomfortable truths regarding Abraham Lincoln’s racial attitudes.
In it, he wrote:
Lincoln, like most of his peers and people of his time, was a racist.
Still, we love the man, and abstruse as it may seem, that love might be justified
This just about sums up the situation, although I wonder if Field Negro includes Africans and America’s slaves in the group to which he refers as “people of his [Lincoln’s] time”. I personally believe that he should do so if he doesn’t, because I am betting that a great number of the very people who were being conquered and enslaved eventually bought into the same idea. Most of the ones who did not go down fighting, anyway. People who get their asses absolutely. totally, overwhelmingly kicked tend to blame themselves in my experience, and that is precisely what happened to black Africa. In point of fact, that is what continues to happen to most of Africa, and we can only hope and pray that the evolutionary forces I sketch out below remain in action until Africa itself is freed of the constraints of institutional racism.
However, I think that Field Negro seriously underestimates Lincoln. He was indeed a “product of his time” as the meme usually runs, but he was a superior product of that time, and he grew enormously during his tragically short life.
Read on for my further thoughts on the matter if you are inclined to do so.
Lincoln was acting on observed truth as he was permitted to see it by his position in the culture, Field Negro.
As are we all. I myself consider my totally pan-racial life…as Field and many other readers know, I am a white man who plays primarily jazz and latin musics, both of which are largely the product of the African experience in the Americas…to be a product of the same set of forces as was Lincoln’s life, although a product that was eased and accelerated by the previous 150 years of change. I grew up in an almost totally white, totally segregated, totally “racist” system…white, northern, middle-class suburban America, post-WW II…and had I not been exposed to a plenitude of seriously superior African-American minds through my interest in music at a relatively young age, who knows? I might have bought into the prevalent attitudes of my culture and never wised up. The American media system was just barely cracking open racially in the late ’50s…Dinah Washington and Ray Charles, Little Richard and Nat King Cole, Jackie Robinson and Count Basie and Jim Brown…and if one did not look deeper into the reality of what was up, all of that could be easily written off as “Them people shore kin sing an’ dance, cain’t they? And RUN!!! Boy howdy!!!”
I was dumb lucky.
I heard Bird and Diz and Monk and Mingus and the rest of the beboppers at 14 and realized that there was more to be understood.
Much more. (There still is, truth be told.).
However, on the evidence of what Lincoln could see during his lifetime in 1800s America, the vast majority of black people were indeed inferior to Europeans on an intellectual level. He and the rest of the world…black, brown, beige and whatever other colors imaginable…had no real science to suggest otherwise to them, no theories of evolution or culture or psychology, only rumour, history, what they had been taught and what they observed personally.
They were dead wrong, but they had no idea…besides perhaps an emotionally-based unease among the more perceptive among them…how wrong they really were.
None at all.
At least there was none at all until the luckiest among them personally met black people whose gifts were such that they managed to transcend their position on the bottom of this ongoing shitpile that we laughingly call “civilization.” This was most certainly the case with Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, for whom Lincoln openly and publicly expressed the highest of respect.
As Douglass recalled, he first met Lincoln in August. Later he explained to a meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society in Philadelphia “how the president of the United States received a black man at the White House.”
To great applause, he explained that the White House messenger respectfully invited him into the president’s office. Lincoln rose and extended his hand as Douglass entered. “Mr. Douglass, I know you; I have read about you, and Mr. Seward [William Seward, the secretary of state] has told me about you.”
Douglass explained that Lincoln “put me at ease at once.”
Although Lincoln did not promise immediate action on the equal pay issue, he was clearly impressed with the service of African-American troops and seemed to agree that “ultimately they would receive the same [pay].”
Douglass left the meeting much impressed with the president, a man much like himself, sincere, self-educated and self-made. Lincoln, he believed, was worthy of “the prefix Honest” before the nickname Abe.
Lincoln’s respect for Douglass encouraged a clearer anti-slavery position. In his second inaugural address after his re-election in 1864, Lincoln linked the hardships of war to the sinfulness of slavery.
Perhaps, he speculated, the Almighty would continue to punish America “until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword.”
For Douglass, these words were further proof of “the solid gravity of [Lincoln’s] character.”
As a further sign of respect, Lincoln invited Douglass to the White House reception after the address, a gesture unprecedented in presidential history.
As the former slave entered the room, the president announced to his guests, “Here comes my friend Douglass.” Then, taking Douglass’ hand, he asked for a comment on the inaugural speech and added, “there is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours.” Douglass complimented the speech, whereupon Lincoln thanked him.
Lincoln had dealt with other blacks during his time in the White House but never on such an equal footing as with Douglass. Both men were well aware of the significance of race for their time. Douglass was realistic in his understanding of Lincoln’s racial assumptions and never regarded him as a thoroughgoing racial egalitarian.
Still, long after Lincoln’s assassination in 1865, Douglass remembered his finer qualities. In 1876, President Ulysses S. Grant unveiled the Freedmen’s Monument in Washington, dedicated to the memory of Abraham Lincoln. Douglass then delivered a speech gracious in its praise of the former president.
Although Lincoln “shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race,” Douglass explained to the interracial audience, his actions made him the man whose name was “near and dear to our hearts.”
Then speaking directly to the African-Americans in the audience, Douglass urged gratefulness for “the vast, high and preeminent services rendered to ourselves, to our race, to our country and to the whole world by Abraham Lincoln.”
This relationship between a former slave and a sitting president of the United States was unique indeed. Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, evidently understood the mutual respect that the two men shared. After Lincoln’s death, she presented Douglass with Lincoln’s favorite walking cane, saying her late husband would have wanted him to have it.
She also wrote, “I know of no one that would appreciate this more than Fred. Douglass.”
Her judgment was sound, for Douglass later wrote, “She sent it to me at Rochester, and I have it in my house to-day, and expect to keep it there as long as I live.”
It has been postulated by many that human evolution…and indeed evolution in general…proceeds in a sort quantum leap of manner. Things go on much as they have and then suddenly for no easily apparent reason the situation jumps to the next level.
Abraham Lincoln’s life came during one of those quantum leaps, as did Frederick Douglass’s. Barack Obama’s presidency is just a part of that continuing leap. I used the word “suddenly” above to describe this sort of change, and despite the seemingly long…long to us short-lived mortals, anyway…150+ years between Lincoln and Obama, in the time frame of the universe that period has only been to the universe as is a nanosecond to us.
So it goes.
Martin Luther King Jr. wrote:
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
Yup.
He was right.
Bet on it.
I am.
Peace.
It’s what’s for dinner, if you wait long enough.
Bet on that as well. Peace, justice and the American way.
The real American way.
Watch.
Later…
AG
This one is a tip to you.
Bet on it.
Later…
AG
P.S. Recommendations would be appreciated, however. I’d like to get this one out there a little.
Heck of a diary, AG and recommended.
I do however have a question. Why do you always (or almost always) include the phrase “bet on it” in your writings?
I can certainly understand its inclusion when you’re writing about future predictions but seeing it here makes me realize it’s something of a “catch phrase” for you and I admit I am curious about its origin.
If you would be so obliged as to illuminate me further on this I would be most grateful.
Pax
I dunno.
I guess because I like it.
(I am resisting the impulse to add…ahhh, YOU know!!!)
AG
I assumed you DID like it and goodness knows, I have a few habitual sayings myself.
I was however curious about its ORIGIN as in perhaps where you picked it up and/or when you started to use it.
I guess to me I find it fascinating because it always implies two things, first that you are attempting to predict something (and that “something” being quite certain) and also because it implies the future is an unknown variable.
Certainly if someone were to say to me, “it will rain tomorrow, bet on it” that would make sense. Meteorology and sundry other methods of forecasting weather being imprecise, anyone predicting future weather WOULD be hazarding a prediction of a future unknown variable. The “bet on it” part would just be an emphasis of your confidence in your prediction.
But in other cases, such as this diary (and others), it’s almost like an unnecessary repetition of assurance. If you were to constantly proclaim your name is Arthur Gilroy and follow it up with “bet on it”, quite frankly I’d begin to believe you were either a) convinced I was in a position to disbelieve you or b) you were trying to quash any such disbelief before it could occur, for various reasons.
I guess what I’m saying is a repetition of the old maxim of “good” writing, which is to simply say what you believe to be true and leave out all assurances thereof, excluding phrases like “I think” and “I believe” etc.
Again, this is simply out of pure curiosity, but do you regularly find people DISBELIEVING you? Or doubting you? The phrase “bet on it” seems almost pre-emptively defensive in nature is what I guess I’m saying.
I would be heartily misrepresenting my own opinion if I were to say I always agree with you but I can say with equanimity that I always DO value reading what you have to say here.
“Catch phrase” or no, its inherent appeal to your tastes or not, perhaps using it a little more infrequently might help get your points across? Just a thought!
Pax
Our names are catchphrases in and of themselves, soj.
Why repeat them?
It’s a brand.
A slogan.
It seems a good one to me.
I use others as well.
“So it goes.”
So it goes.
It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Deconstruct it if you must…
So…nu???
I am ‘attempting to predict something”; I am also “quite certain” (or at least reasonably certain) that my predictions are correct or else I would not present them, and the future isan unknown variable
Like I said…
Why do the revivalist preachers use “Can I get an amen!!!” or “Hallelujah!!!” over and over again? If they are any good, they areusing them as rhythmic devices. Rhythmic devices that are in context.
Rhythmic memes. Rhythmic shortcuts.
Me too.
There is always a third option, soj.
On the evidence of what I have seen on the leftiness blogs:
1-I do believe that most people here are in a position to disbelieve me.
A sleeping position.
and
2-I am also definitely trying to quash any such disbelief before it could occur.
Duh.
So…nu once again?
All of the old maxims of good writing, are gone with the wind, soj. James Joyce, William Faulkner, and many others right through William Burroughs,Hunter Thompson and Joe Bageant have quite thoroughly pulverized them, as have the digital, corporate and media ages in their constant misuse of the language. To reach a media-hypnotized audience…and the basic mindset of one who is “hypnotized” must be that he is indeed not hypnotized or the whole trick falls apart..to reach an audience of that sort one must adopt some of the tools that were used to trance them out in the first place.
I borrow from advertising in that sense.
Catch phrases.
So that people know who’s talking to them, short-minded as most people are from their ongoing TV exposure.
Different spacings so that people are shocked awake a little bit rather than reading what I am writing as if I was writing Time or Newsweak hottest-thing-ever bullshit.
Different voices and idioms, from street right through to bebop, Queen’s English and redneck vernaculars.
The occasional X-rated word, again to let people know that this is not the fucking NY Times they are trancing…errr, reading.
Highly rhythmic writing. Gets the toes tapping, don’tcha know
And so on.
This all has the added benefit of eliminating many dullards from my mix of readers. Most of the people who take exception to how I write are too bone-deep stupid to understand the content anyway…you do not appear to me to be among that group, by the way…so there is no great loss on that end.
Long story short, soj…I write the way I do because that’s the way I write. Like it or lump it. My music is similar, although for money I can assume any number of musical aliases and accents. If I was being paid for this the same would hold true. I can dangle or un-dangle a participle with the best of them should I so desire. I just don’t.
Later…
AG
Mr. Gilroy,
Your very good description of how you write & why you write the way you do, brought to mind the way advertisers, on the trance TV, kick the volume up to wake you, making sure you catch the name of the newest penis enlargement product.
I only talk of technique and am not in any way disparaging your style, (with that analogy) which I`ve always enjoyed.
It could be the beat, also.
Have a good day.
It’s ALL about the beat.
Beat on it.
I mean…bet on it.
Later…
AG
AG, I’ll bypass your certification as a white Jazz lover as an indication of your understanding of the “color problem” in America. However, getting to Lincoln’s role in freeing the slaves (in slave states), here is the real nitty-gritty. At the start of the Civil War, the South Rebel forces were regarded as a rag-tag group of untrained militias supported by the wealthy southern slave owners. The industrial North had little regard for the totally agrarian South. It wasn’t long before the folly of this military misconception was recognized.
As the war dragged on and northern battlefield deaths mounted, the South still lacked heavy weapons, particularly large mobile field emplacement mortars. On the other hand the North had a large supply of large field artillery pieces which gave the Union army complete superiority in heavy weapons. The South tried unsuccessfully to purchase artillery from various European countries without success.
Startling news came to Lincoln via a Southern spy that the South was mining iron ore and coal in Birmingham Alabama and using slave labor to process the ore. The report also stated that Rebels were using slave labor to build field mortars from the finished iron and to make the munitions required. Lincoln recognized that it was highly important to cripple this emerging source of armaments for the South and he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
Hence the Emancipation was primarily a wartime tactical order targeted to preserving the Union and ending the war as quickly as possible. The order was targeted for those slaves in the Alabama area who had experience working with the blast furnaces in Birmingham. Slaves working in the mines could be replaced with untrained slaves without any reduction in the output production, but this was not the case with the slaves trained to work the smelting operations. each one of these slaves was critical and necessary to maintain a high level of output production of these new weapons.
Startling news came to
Y’know parvenu…I take exception to this statement.
I really do take exception to this statement.
I am not just “a white jazz lover”, I am a musician who was forcibly lifted out of the white middle class culture at the age of about 14 by my own talent and thus my corresponding ability to hear past racial prejudices and understand the depth of a music that most of white America at the time considered meaningless gobbledeygook.
Both my own abilities and my exposure to the music were sheer accidents. Had some grammar school teacher handed me a violin or cello instead of a primarily “jazz” instrument at age 9, had I been going to school in a system that was not staffed with ex-swing band musicians…good people who encouraged my perceptions…and if I was not blessed with enough moral courage to stand my musical and cultural ground against almost all of white society then I would not have been part of perhaps about the one millionth of the white American population of my generation to have had the privilege of having any number of black people as my mentors and models, thus having the even greater privilege of realizing on an ongoing experiential level the essential equality of all races. (Again…all of this is a combination of genetic and causal accident and I claim absolutely no credit for having been in the position for it to happen to me. The phrase “dumb lucky” applies perfectly.)
And you dismiss all of this with a some cliché about a “white Jazz lover”, complete with a totally wrong capitalization of the word “jazz”, a capitalization that tells me that you probably wouldn’t be able to recognize the difference between Johnny Hodges and Charlie Parker.
Lemme ask you something, parvenu. Are you white? I’m guessing that you are, and I am further guessing that you have had damned little contact with black people on a basis of real equality. YOU know, the kind of equality where if you do not do something as well as do some of them, you recognize those people as your superiors and model yourself and your life after the way that they have lived.
You diss something that I consider to have been a sheer blessing to me, and I do not take that diss lightly. Were you to say that to my face, I would probably have to either walk out of the room or take you outside with me.
Bet on it.
The rest of what you wrote?
Civil War History 101.
So what?
Did you copy it out of a book?
Give me a break.
You didn’t even finish your post.
Nice.
What’s your point?
That Lincoln was an unrepentant racist and secretly wanted to hang Frederick Douglass from the nearest peckerwood tree?
Get lost.
AG
Interesting, hmmmm, very interesting…
Nice answer, too
I expected nothing more.
AG