As I previously discussed, Lincoln’s role in the Dakota executions is legitimately controversial but has been presented without some countervailing facts. The Sioux or Dakota uprising occurred not long after Minnesota became a state and involved the death of hundreds of settlers. The Army crushed the Sioux and captured hundreds. A military tribunal sentenced 303 to death for alleged crimes against civilians and other crimes. The trial itself was a farce with no real representation or reliable evidence. Lincoln reviewed the transcripts of the 303 and told the Senate:
“Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I ordered a careful examination of the records of the trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guilty of violating females.”
However, only two men were found guilty of rape and Lincoln later expanded the criteria to include those who participated in “massacres” of civilians as opposed to battles with the Army.
Lincoln however commuted the sentence of 264 of the 303 convicted.
This is not the first time Lincoln has faced the ire of some in Wisconsin. When Lincoln called the nation to war against the South, many in Wisconsin did not support the cause and rioted against Lincoln. Ultimately, however, Wisconsin sent multiple regiments who fought valiantly in the War and sacrificed much to defeat both the South and slavery.
Having a statue to a leader like Lincoln is not an endorsement of his entire legacy. I have heavily criticized Lincoln for the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus and the loss of free speech rights as well as other decisions. We learn from such public memorials, which can be augmented with a more full historical context and criticism. However, to say that Lincoln is a symbol of white supremacy ignores his pivotal role in fighting slavery, a cause for which he would ultimately give his own life.
Here is the petition in support of keeping the statue where it is if you want to support Old Abe.
125 thoughts on ““Not Pro-Black”: Wisconsin Students Unanimously Vote To Remove Lincoln Statue As Racist”
OMG, you people are batshit crazy. I hope you would please leave this country, QUICKLY.
Whoever taught this lying crap needs to be fired after they tell the truth about a great President who Championed freedom for the blacks of his time.
The Constitution stood until “Crazy Abe” Lincoln commenced its nullification and the implementation of the principles of communism.
Please cite the Constitution wherein “Crazy Abe’s” denial of secession was legitimate and valid.
Without a legal basis for that foundational act of nullification, everything “Crazy Abe” did was antithetical, illicit and unconstitutional.
For crying out loud, the American Founders engaged in and caused the secession of its colonies from Great Britain.
Secession was fully constitutionally and other, constitutional means should have been employed to end slavery such as advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc.
Americans knew that slavery was untenable and would be terminated eventually.
The CSA would have failed and ultimately re-united for its own benefit under advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc., that course was controlled by the actions of free people, not dictators and dictatorship.
“Crazy Abe” rejected the Constitution and its methodology, preferring his personal power and tyranny.
There was the Constitution and then there was “Crazy Abe” Lincoln; dictator; tyrant.
Earlier Resettlement Plans
The view that America’s apparently intractable racial problem should be solved by removing Blacks from this country and resettling them elsewhere — “colonization” or “repatriation” — was not a new one. As early as 1714 a New Jersey man proposed sending Blacks to Africa. In 1777 a Virginia legislature committee, headed by future President Thomas Jefferson (himself a major slave owner), proposed a plan of gradual emancipation and resettlement of the state’s slaves. In 1815, an enterprising free Black from Massachusetts named Paul Cuffe transported, at his own expense, 38 free blacks to West Africa. His undertaking showed that at least some free Blacks were eager to resettle in a country of their own, and suggested what might be possible with public and even government support.7
In December 1816, a group of distinguished Americans met in Washington, DC, to establish an organization to promote the cause of Black resettlement. The “American Colonization Society” soon won backing from some of the young nation’s most prominent citizens. Henry Clay, Francis Scott Key, John Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, Millard Fillmore, John Marshall, Roger B. Taney, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen A. Douglas, and Abraham Lincoln were members. Clay presided at the group’s first meeting.8
Measures to resettle Blacks in Africa were soon undertaken. Society member Charles Fenton Mercer played an important role in getting Congress to pass the Anti-Slave Trading Act of March 1819, which appropriated $100,000 to transport Blacks to Africa. In enforcing the Act, Mercer suggested to President James Monroe that if Blacks were simply returned to the coast of Africa and released, they would probably be re-enslaved, and possibly some returned to the United States. Accordingly, and in cooperation with the Society, Monroe sent agents to acquire territory on Africa’s West coast — a step that led to the founding of the country now known as Liberia. Its capital city was named Monrovia in honor of the American President.9
With crucial Society backing, Black settlers began arriving from the United States in 1822. While only free Blacks were at first brought over, after 1827, slaves were freed expressly for the purpose of transporting them to Liberia. In 1847, Black settlers declared Liberia an independent republic, with an American-style flag and constitution.10
By 1832 the legislatures of more than a dozen states (at that time there were only 24), had given official approval to the Society, including at least three slave-holding states.11 Indiana’s legislature, for example, passed the following joint resolution on January 16, 1850:12
Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be, and they are hereby requested, in the name of the State of Indiana, to call for a change of national policy on the subject of the African Slave Trade, and that they require a settlement of the coast of Africa with colored men from the United States, and procure such changes in our relations with England as will permit us to transport colored men from this country to Africa, with whom to effect said settlement.
In January 1858, Missouri Congressman Francis P. Blair, Jr., introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to set up a committee
to inquire into the expediency of providing for the acquisition of territory either in the Central or South American states, to be colonized with colored persons from the United States who are now free, or who may hereafter become free, and who may be willing to settle in such territory as a dependency of the United States, with ample guarantees of their personal and political rights.
Blair, quoting Thomas Jefferson, stated that Blacks could never be accepted as the equals of Whites, and, consequently, urged support for a dual policy of emancipation and deportation, similar to Spain’s expulsion of the Moors. Blair went on to argue that the territory acquired for the purpose would also serve as a bulwark against any further encroachment by England in the Central and South American regions.13
– Robert Morgan
It’s difficult to deal with this amount of insanity in a single reply, however, let’s begin with your spurious statement, “Please cite the Constitution wherein “Crazy Abe’s” denial of secession was legitimate and valid.” Article 4, section 3 provides for the admission of new states. Please cite the potion that provides for secession.
“Americans knew that slavery was untenable and would be terminated eventually.” Let’s stipulate that the Gulags and the concentration camps would be terminated eventually. Would you, as a slave, a Kulak, or a Jew, have been content to endure generations of slavery and murder rather than see Americans fix bayonets, raise the Stars and Stripes, and march south for four years until they washed out the stain of slavery with their blood? The Confederacy tried to break the Union and sent their sons to die for slavery. What makes you think they were ready to terminate it without a life and death struggle? So don’t tell me what the CSA would have done as “free people.” That is precisely what they were NOT.
Good God. In the 21st century you are still yammering about dispossessing and deporting American citizens to Africa based on their skin color? This kind of insanity is the best possible illustration that the slave power could never have been overcome by enlightened reason. It was based on naked force and could only be destroyed by the counter force of human progress.
I generally agree. The Sovereign or Independent states that resulted from the Revolution joined together voluntarily by mutual compromise and common accord peacefully sacrificing some of their powers for the better functioning of the Union. As the southern states saw that northern states and the Republican Party financed by northern industrialists who were jealous of southern trade with Britain and France vowed to Abolish Slavery and impose Tariffs harmful to southern trade, and with the example of the violent uprising at Harper’s Ferry, approved by many in the North (“John Brown’s Body is Amoldering in the Grave” popularity) they decided to secede to protect their economic interests of the wealthy class vs the northern wealthy class of industrialists and the Republican Party. When Lincoln called for 75,000 men to invade the South violently in spite of the declarations of Secession, even Virginia and Tennessee revolted against the tyranny of Lincoln and declared their secession also. The secession was Legal, whatever the motivations, and Lincoln’s act was effectively a violation of the Constitution agreed upon which had no prohibition of secession by the Sovereign States,. Thus began the “Rebel Flag” in Defense of the state of Virginia (and others) and a war that caused the death of over 620,000 Americans as well as the creation of hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans as well as permanently maimed veterans wounded in body and mind. This situation has been badly interpreted. It is also a sound conclusion that, if left alone and with some attempts at peaceful compromise , the Confederacy would have come to an end, just as the Confederation of 1784 had out of the natural weakness of the confederation principles.. In modern terms, the amount of the US population that died would be about six million two hundred thousand, as the population of the US in 1861 was about one tenth of the present. Lincoln was intelligent, but he was not wise nor was he great. He was our worst president and caused wounds that persist to this day among some Americans.
Here is an excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s Second Annual Message (1 December 1862), in which he proposed as a peaceful means to end the rebellion three amendments to the Constitution, aimed at: 1) the gradual abolition of slavery by 1900 AD, with compensation to ex-slaveholders; 2) forever freedom for all colored persons who managed to escape slavery during the rebellion; and 3) the option of voluntary paid deportation for all free colored persons to any new country of their choice (if said countries were willing to receive them).
The speech should be read in its entirety. I risk damaging Lincoln’s image (and total train of thought) by sharing only an excerpt. But this excerpt does seem relevant to both sides of a fair argument.
The Emancipation Proclamation followed just one month later:
“I can not make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization; and yet I wish to say there is an objection urged against free colored persons remaining in the country which is largely imaginary, if not sometimes malicious.”
“It is insisted that their presence would injure and displace white labor and white laborers. If there ever could be a proper time for mere catch arguments, that time surely is not now. In times like the present men should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible through time and in eternity. Is it true, then, that colored people can displace any more white labor by being free than by remaining slaves? If they stay in their old places, they jostle no white laborers; if they leave their old places, they leave them open to white laborers. Logically, there is neither more nor less of it. Emancipation, even without deportation, would probably enhance the wages of white labor, and very surely would not reduce them. Thus the customary amount of labor would still have to be performed—the freed people would surely not do more than their old proportion of it, and very probably for a time would do less, leaving an increased part to white laborers, bringing their labor into greater demand, and consequently enhancing the wages of it. With deportation, even to a limited extent, enhanced wages to white labor is mathematically certain. Labor is like any other commodity in the market—increase the demand for it and you increase the price of it. Reduce the supply of black labor by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and by precisely so much you increase the demand for and wages of white labor.”
“But it is dreaded that the freed people will swarm forth and cover the whole land. Are they not already in the land? Will liberation make them any more numerous? Equally distributed among the whites of the whole country, and there would be but one colored to seven whites. Could the one in any way greatly disturb the seven? There are many communities now having more than one free colored person to seven whites and this without any apparent consciousness of evil from it. The District of Columbia and the States of Maryland and Delaware are all in this condition. The District has more than one free colored to six whites, and yet in its frequent petitions to Congress I believe it has never presented the presence of free colored persons as one of its grievances. But why should emancipation South send the free people North? People of any color seldom run unless there be something to run from. Hertofore colored people to some extent have fled North from bondage, and now, perhaps, from both bondage and destitution. But if gradual emancipation and deportation be adopted, they will have neither to flee from. Their old masters will give them wages at least until new laborers can be procured, and the freedmen in turn will gladly give their labor for the wages till new homes can be found for them in congenial climes and with people of their own blood and race. This proposition can be trusted on the mutual interests involved. And in any event, can not the North decide for itself whether to receive them?”
Thank you for commenting. Do you know about Frederick Law Olmsted’s research of the slave economy? He spent 5 years in the 1850s traveling through the South & found that nearly all free whites had living standards below northern working men. Slavery was also inefficient, with a set amount of work taking 4 times as long in Virginia as in the North. I wonder why so many whites would willingly risk their lives to defend that. I suspect their poverty made military service more attractive.
Depopulate the Left. Refuse paying to send your kids to four years of debauched partying (a.k.a. ‘college’).
Lincoln thought if the USA bough them a homeland (Liberia) and provided transportation thy would go to Africa but like the native Americans who gave up their heritages it was white folks biscuits. Their historic diet would have kept them thinner and more healthy like their African ancestors–wouldn’t hurt the rest of us. Returning to our European diet on the land of potatoes and tomatoes and corn – too late the Carribean islands made money on sugar…
Somewhere these guys learned the truth about Abraham Lincoln. Maybe a book called “The Real Lincoln?” Lincoln was a racist. Lincoln tried to send the blacks back to Africa, but they refused to go. I guess the blacks are happy to be in America? He hated blacks and Lincoln did NOT free the first slave. That was the 13th amendment! Lincoln was dead by then.
It’s simply amazing how stupid all of these kids, and some adults, actually are. I’m sure, had all of them been alive in the 1800’s, they would have been more radical than anyone else alive at the time, and would have had 21st century ideas and standards on race. I’m sure, they would have completely thought blacks their equals, and would have wanted a black man for president even!
It’s very similar to how none of them think they would have been Nazi’s in Nazi Germany. None of these people have the balls to stand up to disgusting aspects of culture today, and this article is proof of that. No, they would have been the loudest of the supporters at a Hitler rally.
Frederick Douglas would vehemently disagree with you.
He offered that only to those who wished to go. There was never any pressure. It was an option
The 13th Amendment was passed by Congress and sent to the states at the behest of the Republican party headed and driven by President Abraham Lincoln. He was murdered shortly thereafter by dead end Confederate scum who wanted to keep the slaves in bondage. If you are so morally superior to the great emancipator, please tell me what you have done and how much blood you have shed for the betterment of humanity and the elimination of slavery in this nation and world.
What’s the phrase? “Chronological snobbery.”
Why hold 19th Century men to 21st Century standards?
Lincoln doesn’t get a statue for being a man of his times. He gets a statue for going above and beyond his times. But that, apparently, still isn’t close enough today’s Wokesters.
Somewhere these guys learned the truth about Abraham Lincoln. Maybe a book called “The Real Lincoln?” Lincoln was a racist. Lincoln tried to send the blacks back to Africa, but they refused to go. I guess the blacks are happy to be in America? He hated blacks and Lincoln did NOT free the first slave. That was the 13th amendment! Lincoln was dead by then.
13th amendment process was started by Lincoln after he became president. History sucks when you don’t know it…
You are brainwashed and full of hatred. Get a life man.
Earnestly I ask, “Does any college offer a course on how not to be Woke”?
Surely someone sees the market need for a vaccine or antidote?
Here is what they believe; here is how they came to believe it; here are the tactics they use; here are logical fallacies; here are the logical fallacies. And here’s how to have sane conversation with them.
Jonathan Haidt? James Lindsay?
University Deprogramming 101
Yes there are courses teaching people not to be woke. Send your kids to Hillsdale. They will get a real education.
I will second that motion. Hillsdale College in Michigan has got to be one of the best, if not the best, schools in the Country supporting traditional values and serious studies in history of the classics and
the US Constitution
I am going to offer a simplistic idea about how we will see the end of this type of juvenile virtue signaling by the children attending our universities. We will see college administrations clamp down on this moral preening that comes at the expense of rational and educated thought when, and only when, the checks from the alumnae dry up. Here is where I go basic and simplistic: The NBA went full radical, full in your face hatred towards the mainstream sports fan and full radical BLM…and they went broke. People will tolerate a lot, but they will not use their hard earned money to support people that don’t like them and who call them racist.
100% agree with you! I don’t give a single penny to any entity that supports BLM and/or removal of any of my God given rights protected by our U.S. Constitution. Not one penny!
Depopulate the Left. Refuse to pay to send your kids to college.
Wisconsin Students are White Supremacist? All Socialist are White Supremacist.
Why would idiot students who only come to a University for four short years even be involved in a decision like this one.
So instead of destroying the statue…why don’t you donate it to people who WILL appreciate it. If you destroy it, you’re being a bigot ’cause you’d be doing just what you hate in others! So donate the statue.
Let others enjoy it and remember what a great man Lincoln was in difficult times more than this. Then go back to your drugs and party life and leave American history alone. Your little hissy fitting about a mere statue will disappear in the shear weight of all the GOOD that this man did for us.
Here is what I find interesting. It is so obvious that you love to hear yourself speak. (Or read your written word-because you are so clever) So easy to provide your opinion today about the events that transpired in the 1800’s. What will those that follow us say about who you are as a man? What are your great works? What is your contribution to society? Instead of all this display to show your writing abilities; why not take your skill sets and go into the communities of those folks in need. Don’t preach, don’t worry about a statue, worry about the people. Give them what you have. That will be your contribution. When people start giving back; there will be no desire to worry about statues. This was our history, warts and all. We are an imperfect society. How many of you would have even had the courage to be president during the time of Lincoln? Where did all this hate come from? I really can’t explain it. Stop the erasing of our history. Go do your part. Go share and mentor those less fortunate. When you are a true giver, you become less of a hater. Be a better person. Don’t let your personal hate of whatever issues you have become the match that lights a fire. Go be a good ambassador and provide the light for others to follow. Could you imagine a country where EVERYONE shared their TIME and skill sets with those that needed it? Everyone would be so busy GIVING, there would be no time or desire to rewrite history. There would not be all this divisiveness and hate.
You are hypothesizing about the writer so you can justify the lie about Lincoln. That makes you a liar twice.
The hate comes from the faculty at this and other schools of Marxism. This school has long been an outpost of communism’s, and the destruction of history is a part of communism. Teachers who use their status as in loco parentis to infuse hatred and communism into their students should be, at the very least, expelled and never allowed access to kids again.
Very well said
What is a “Cadillac Lincoln”? Or a “Lincoln Continental”?
Two cars don’t make a right. Or a left.
Turley, youre just wrong. Lincoln was very racist. Want me to list some of his most famous racist comments?
Compared to who in 1860?
You THINK you know but in reality that is your biggest problem. ALL that you know is lies and disinformation. When was the Republican party started? 1850. What was it’s main goal? To END Slavery! Who was it’s first candidate that was elected as President? Abraham Lincoln. Who led the war to end slavery. Lincoln. Lincoln was murdered by whom? John Wilkes Booth. He was a Democrat and an actor. Wow, sounds like today’s Hollywood celebs! Things have not changed.
Marxists Professors try to teach that things changed and they switched places and that the Dems were the Right back then? But if that is the case why did tens of thousands of KKKlan members attend the 1924 Democrat convention in New York? Just search for klanbake to read about it. Also search for Bill Clinton’s speech given at Robert Byrd’s (A self admitted and known high ranking klan member) funeral? You may not be stupid, but everything you think you know as truth is actually a lie and is wrong and you have been indoctrinated. You may as well have be sent to an education camp. That is what these Universities have become, self Volunteered indoctrination!
Larry, it was 150 years ago.. most people were racist. Lincoln became less and less racist as time went on. He helped win the civil war by making it about abolishing slavery. He is the great emancipator. I’m sure, had you been alive in those times, you would have been the most radically non-racist person alive. I’m sure you would have held the same standards as we do in the 21st century, even though literally no one did at the time.
Mr. Turley writes: “I have heavily criticized Lincoln for the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus and the loss of free speech rights as well as other decisions. We learn from such public memorials, which can be augmented with a more full historical context and criticism.”
Speaking only to the charge of unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus – though there are many other questions raised by this article – here is an excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s 4 July 1861 Message to Congress:
“Soon after the first call for militia it was considered a duty to authorize the Commanding General in proper cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or, in other words, to arrest and detain without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law such individuals as he might deem dangerous to the public safety. This authority has purposely been exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done under it are questioned, and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who is sworn to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” should not himself violate them. Of course some consideration was given to the questions of power and propriety before this matter was acted upon. The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution in nearly one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen’s liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very limited extent be violated? To state the question more directly, Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it? But it was not believed that this question was presented. It was not believed that any law was violated. The provision of the Constitution that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it” is equivalent to a provision–is a provision-that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power; but the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it can not be believed the framers of the instrument intended that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion.
No more extended argument is now offered, as an opinion at some length will probably be presented by the Attorney-General. Whether there shall be any legislation upon the subject, and, if any, what, is submitted entirely to the better judgment of Congress.”
I am no expert in the subject area, and welcome additional information from Mr. Turley or another observer.
Yes a very timely subject Maxson. And this can be used again if need be however odious a tactic it may seem
it was argued that certain people such as Jose Padilla were essentially detained in such a manner after 9/11
who knows that too may come again, in this “Year of the Rat” 2020
Glad you provided this explanation of Lincoln’s position, given how often he is attacked on the subject. The prohibition on suspending Habeas Corpus appears in Article 1 as a limitation on the power of Congress, and I believe that the Supreme Court held that it was not a Presidential power, after which Congress did act to suspend it, thereby resolving the question.
If Lincoln was a dictator, then he was surely going to be a Cinncinatus.
Frederick Douglas said of him:
“Abraham Lincoln (was) one of the greatest and best men ever produced by this country, if not ever produced by the world at large… Glorious man! He was a man so broad in his sympathy, so noble in his character, so just in his action, so free from narrow prejudice… To know him as I knew him I regard as one of the grandest privileges experienced by me during a considerable lifetime.”
The below excerpt from a speech that President Lincoln gave in Peoria on October 16, 1854 shows that President Lincoln thoughts about the rights of Slaves. ________________________https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/peoriaspeech.htm________________
I HAD TO MODIFY THE WORD PRESIDENT LINCOLN USED TO DISCRIBE AFRICAN AMERICAN DUE TO MODERATION OF THIS SITE.___________________________
“…The doctrine of self government is right—absolutely and eternally right—but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a (African American) is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the (African American) is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government—that is despotism. If the (African American) is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal;” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another…”
Generally speaking I support your positions, Jonathan (and we were once acquainted through our families in Uptown in Chicago) but on this one I think you’ve made at least one crucial error (or at least you need to provide a better source). You say that the “student government [at UWisconsin/Madison] has now voted unanimously in favor of a resolution that calls for the removal of the Abraham Lincoln statue on campus.” But the link you provide to document that (from a conservative student website) only indicates that a campus group called “Student Inclusion Coalition of UW-Madison” has called for removal of the statue, and doesn’t provide any more info about the group, not even how many members it has. Is there evidence that the student government at Madison has called for the statue’s removal? If so, where is it? But if this is just, in fact, a call from one campus group (that could have only six members, since your link doesn’t tell us) is it really worth the outrage? Be careful not to be guilty of the same loose use of evidence that you so often (correctly) call out others for. (But if in fact the entire student government at UWisconsin has called for Lincoln’s statue to be removed, then I’d totally agree with you.)
Thomas Di Lorenzo, has published three books well documented and sourced books Lincoln that definitively prove Mr. Lincoln was a white supremacist, a racist and a criminal. Read an outstanding review here; https://thenewamerican.com/review-of-the-problem-with-lincoln/
Here is an excerpt; In chapter three, “The President Who Invaded His Own Country,” DiLorenzo makes the shocking statement that “there can be no clearer example in American history of an act of treason than Lincoln’s invasion of the Southern United States.” The Constitution defines treason against the United States as “levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort” (Art. III, sec. 3). And as DiLorenzo reminds us: “In all of the founding documents the phrase ‘United States’ is always in the plural.” Because Lincoln “never conceded that the Confederate government was legitimate,” and that “the Southern states were always in the Union,” when he invaded the South “he was invading his own country.”
Thomas Di Lorenzo, has published three books well documented and sourced books Lincoln that definitively prove Mr. Lincoln was a white supremacist,
Mr. DiLorenzo is a business professor and you’d have to scrounge to find working historians who take his historiography seriously.
A couple of books history does not make. He has been heavily criticized about his writings on Lincoln and is in no way a definitive voice of President Lincoln.
Mr. Lorenzo, you’re an idiot. The south had declared cessation from the Union, and were actively invading the north themselves. They also fired the first shots of the war.
Just because you write books, doesn’t make you an actual historian, and it doesn’t make you right. Hell it doesn’t even make you smart. I can find plenty of “books” that are just filled with pseudo-science and history. You’re like woman who wrote the 1619 project.. just utter drivel.
Here is the article
Thank you, David Keller, for supplying that article, which does indeed indicate that the student gov’t voted as Prof. Turley said it did. (I hope he inserts your link into the original piece!) I’m a labor historian who has written about radical unions and interracial organizing, and without getting into the particulars, let me just say that I concur that demanding the removal of Lincoln’s statue is a profoundly misguided act. There is much genuine work that needs to be done to overcome racism in the U.S. but expending energy on actions such as these won’t get us there.
I noticed the same hyperlink issue and thank Gilpin and Keller for taking the time to post their comments.
The College Fix writes: “Associated Students of Madison Diverse Engagement Coordinator Chrystal Zhao explained in an email to The College Fix why the student government sided with the protestors.”
“First, I would like to say that not all representatives in ASM agree that [the] Abraham Lincoln Statue should be removed. With that said, Abraham Lincoln is a representation of ethnic cleansing of indigenous folks and the fact that UW-Madison stands on stolen land,” Zhao said.
“Many students do not feel comfortable seeing him every day when we used to walk to classes. And his presence on Bascom shows that UW-Madison does not care about the ‘shared future’ plan we have with Ho-Chuck [sic] people and other first nations.”
There will always be a difference between youthful idealism and mature realism. Surely it is easier to wish away a statue of Lincoln’s genius than it is to get a PhD in Lincoln Studies, and easier to get a PhD in Lincoln Studies than it is to teach in a Lincoln Studies program for a generation or two.
Still, and only in part lest I be accused of reverse ageism, we are at a historical consciousness-raising inflection point, and these students are right to exercise their free speech in their quest to create a more perfect campus, state and union. They are the future of Wisconsin and the nation. The just molding of their intellect and character is at the heart of their contract with the university. Chancellor Blank appears to have responding accordingly.
Statements somewhat similar to those made by Zhao about Lincoln are also made about Mao:
Since ratification of the UN Charter at the end of World War II in 1945, not all UN regions, territories and states have moved at the same pace, away from the extremes of despotism and anarchy, toward a more harmonious Union. Today, US authorities are under enormous scrutiny from their more numerous peers in mainland China. Some Chinese authorities may see in Lincoln’s so-called “ethnic cleansing of indigenous folks” a case both for contemporary re-education of Uighur Muslims, and for US silence on the matter. Others may see in the so-called “fact that UW-Madison stands on stolen land” a case for the forced occupation of Tibet or Taiwan, and again for US silence on the matter.
Many in the US will not be silent. But taking Lincoln’s understanding of the political whole, majority and minority into account, it seems better for US and Chinese authorities to first listen carefully to all members of the UN General Assembly, than fight with one another, for continued insight. What does the conscience of humanity, in total, have to say about the resolution of these conflicts? On the US side, can we even have a complete and balanced UN General Assembly without at least one free and independent indigenous North American state among its ranks? The US must play its part to “create a permanent, dignified, and appropriate status for indigenous peoples at the UN”:
“The University of Wisconsin-Madison student government recently voted to approve a resolution that supports the removal of the school’s famous Abraham Lincoln statue…The resolution states their removal would “create an inclusive and safe environment for all students.” It passed unanimously.” So, Toni Gilpin, what you said was wrong. https://www.thecollegefix.com/uw-madison-student-government-passes-resolution-supporting-removal-of-lincoln-statue/
I noticed you didn’t provide a citation. I think that replying to a contention by demanding a citation is generally off the mark. One should reply with a citation that contradicts the contention as opposed to demanding the party of the first part do your homework.
OK. Anyone who wants to pull down Lincoln statues as racist are crazy. Don’t allow crazy people to set policy.
It’s anachronistic to judge anyone of antiquity by today’s standards. Zero would pass muster.
Come on, people. These maniacs should be relegated to ranting at a subway station, not encouraged.
Fifty years ago, Garry Wills offered in reference to the truculent youth of that era, “someday each will find evil in himself; then they will no longer be kids”. Not holdin’ my breath with the younger generation of today.
I agree, Karen!
They are all rabble. Don’t worry about Lincoln. Odysseus is the role model we need today.
“Not Pro-Black”: Wisconsin Students Unanimously Vote To Remove Lincoln Statue As Racist
– Professor Turley
Do they know which country they are in?
Why in the world did they stay (come) here?
Oh yeah, c’mon, man, they stayed (came) for the “free stuff!”
The Israelites were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers and they had no funding; no resources; nothing but “manna from heaven” – nothing but resolve, determination, acumen and intelligence – for crying out loud, they parted a sea to get to “the promised land.”
Lincoln was racist – America was racist – don’t take it so hard – it’s natural.
Birds of a feather flock together – the biological bipeds of identical plumages are gregarious – it’s axiomatic.
The winners write the history books.
The Lincoln memorial exists because that brutal dictator won.
The American Founders, in four iterations, required citizens to be “…free white person(s).”
– Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802
“If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land…he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals…my own feelings will not admit of this, and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
– Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln destroyed “ourselves” and the Constitution to impose his personal will over Americans enjoying their freedom.
Abraham Lincoln was against slavery and for compassionate repatriation.
“Crazy Abe” Lincoln ignored and nullified the Constitution, denied fully constitutional secession, seized power and conducted a brutal “Reign of Terror,” not against blacks but against his fellow white Americans.
The constitutional method of ending slavery included advocacy, boycotts, divestiture and other moral and economic tools of freedom.
“Crazy Abe” just couldn’t wait for the methodology of the Constitution, he imposed dictatorship (illicitly suspended Habeas Corpus).
Congress Votes Funds for Resettlement
In 1860, the 3,185 slaves in the District of Columbia were owned by just two percent of the District’s residents. In April 1862, Lincoln arranged to have a bill introduced in Congress that would compensate District slave-holders an average of $300 for each slave. An additional $100,000 was appropriated 55
to be expended under the direction of the President of the United States, to aid in the colonization and settlement of such free persons of African descent now residing in said District, including those to be liberated by this act, as may desire to emigrate to the Republic of Haiti or Liberia, or such other country beyond the limits of the United States as the President may determine.
When he signed the bill into law on April 16, Lincoln stated: “I am gratified that the two principles of compensation, and colonization, are both recognized, and practically applied in the act.”56
Two months later, as part of the (second) Confiscation Act of July 1862, Congress appropriated an additional half-million dollars for the President’s use in resettling Blacks who came under Union military control. Rejecting criticism from prominent “radicals” such as Senator Charles Sumner, most Senators and Representatives expressed support for the bold project in a joint resolution declaring57
that the President is hereby authorized to make provision for the transportation, colonization and settlement in some tropical country beyond the limits of the United States, of such persons of African race, made free by the provisions of this act, as may be willing to emigrate …
Lincoln now had Congressional authority and $600,000 in authorized funds to proceed with his plan for resettlement.
– Robert Morgan
In his first annual message to Congress on December 3, 1861, President Lincoln proposed that persons liberated by the fighting should be deemed free and
that, in any event, steps be taken for colonizing [them] … at some place, or places, in a climate congenial to them. It might be well to consider, too, whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization.
This effort, Lincoln recognized, “may involve the acquiring of territory, and also the appropriation of money beyond that to be expended in the territorial acquisition.” Some form of resettlement, he said, amounts to an “absolute necessity.”49
– Robert Morgan
Geroge, I love how all of your quotes from Lincoln are from before he was even the president. As if it isn’t widely known and accepted that Lincoln changed his views considerably during the course of his term as president. He didn’t even campaign on abolition, and yet he was it’s biggest advocate during the later years of the war.
Deleting History will cause us to repeat it
Jon, you’re supposed to be a historian. You need to do some research. It is well-known that Lincoln did not think blacks had the intellect to live in harmony with whites and was in favor of recolonization, although he wanted them to go to South and Central America rather than back to Africa. The “Emancipation Proclamation” was a ploy in an attempt to get the Confederate states to return to the Union. It was later used to promote enlistment into a depleted Union Army. As for John Wilkes Booth, his motives were due to Lincoln’s actions, not slavery. Of course, the students are blooming idiots as is true of all too many student bodies on America’s campuses. They make everything about slavery even though slavery ended over a century and a half ago.
Sam, Thomas Jefferson and Henry Clay had proposed colonization of freed slaves to Liberia long before Lincoln, and Lincoln favored Liberia. But when he ralized that the cost of transporting a large number of freed slaves all the way to Africa was prohibitive, he proposed sending them to Central and South America.
It is also important to understand that Lincoln never brought up colonization again after he signed the Emancipation Proclamation because he knew the abolitionists would go nuts.
Also, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves, or make slavery illegal in all of the States. It only applied to the States in the Confederacy that were not under Union control, and it left slavery legal in the Union States where it was legal.
All of which speaks to the fact that despite what Ken Burns claimed in “The Civil War”, the Civil War was not fought over slavery. It was all about money, like all wars.
BTW, many freed slaves did return to Liberia, and many of them became slaveholders there.
the Civil War was not fought over slavery. It was all about money, like all wars.
Thanks for the Smedley Butler crankery. Always an education.
The South had a money angle all right. They were offered no compensation for a potential “taking” of a massive amount of property which under the Fifth Amendment would have required just compensation. None was offered.
Now just imagine if we had a blue wave. And then New York and California elites outlawed all gasoline vehicles from use in flyover. Far fetched perhaps, but the proposal has been floated in California already. …. Now imagine that no compensation were offered to gasoline using car owners for their suddenly worthless property.
Would the central states simply submit to this?
At what point would it be a big enough issue to go to war? I only ask.
Under Lincoln, there was a very small such program but it was implemented only in DC, where payments made to owners of freed slaves.
Whereas, in some other countries, laws freeing chattel slaves were tied to recompense for former owners. This paved the way for a peaceful settlement of the issue in those venues.
here the price was paid in blood. that was easier for the North to accomplish than getting the legislature to resolve the matter.
Now maybe the Southern states were not willing to test the issue in Congress so it is a purely speculative point. But slavery was, fundamentally, a social institution driven by economics.
I know this may seem a ghastly point of view given all the usual fussing over racism and slavery, but I am simply trying to look at it according to the viewpoints of the adversaries at the time.
IIRC, the federal government floated a compensated emancipation program for Delaware ca. 1861. Rejected. Compensated emancipation was never an option in this country.
BTW, many freed slaves did return to Liberia, and many of them became slaveholders there.
Nope. About 20,000 IIRC. Today, they number fewer than 200,000. They formed an aristocratic stratum in Liberia, but I don’t think there was chattel slavery therein.
It seems you are the one in need of some historical context. “Science” in the mid-19th century shared a belief that various non-white European ethnic groups were intellectually inferior to Europeans, reaffirming this belief w/the observed primacy of Western culture & economics. Lincoln, who only observed blacks in their uneducated status as slaves or recent freedmen, and was no “scientist”, accepted the conventional wisdom & worried whether blacks could be integrated into such a complex, industrial society as he knew the US was becoming. It was not from malice or hatred. He was a man of his time. No, a man far ahead of his time, w/respect to the concept of race relations. Tearing down his statue is idiotic, malicious behavior by modern day Neanderthals.
Professor Turley is not a historian and maybe you need to go and read his bio before making comments here on his website.
Daily the liberals on this site try to obviate the obvious obnoxious offensive occurrence of the offal of the Democratic Party.
I couldn’t think of a proper word to describe the student body at University of Wisconsin-Madison so I turned to my Thesaurus. Intellectual Capacity came to mind but that was ruled out as the Student Body has none. Then I turned to MORON and found many words that matched including FOOL, DOPE, ASS, SIMPLETON, NIT-WIT, NINNY, DUNCE (they probably had to stand in corner), DUMBHEAD, LOONY, DOLT, NUMSULL, IDIOT, OAF, BONEHEAD, DUMBBELL, NINCOMPOOP, BOOD and the most applicable IMBECILE. __________________
I quote from Federalist 15 by Alexander Hamilton in part___ “…We may indeed, with propriety, be said to have reached almost the last stage of national humiliation. There is scarcely any thing that can wound the pride, or degrade the character, of an independent people, which we do not experience, Are there engagements, to the performance of which we are held by every tie respectable among men? These are the subjects of constant and unblushing violation….” ______ I pray that someday these sophomoric kids see the errors of their ways!
Comments are closed.