|
|
|
|
|
|
Big Enough to Be Inconsistent: Abraham Lincoln Confronts Slavery and Race (The W. E. B. Du Bois Lectures)
written by George M. Fredrickson
Studio : Harvard University Press
by Harvard University Press
Publisher : Harvard University Press
Released : 2008-02-28
Availability : Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Number of Items : 1
EAN : 9780674027749
Avg. Customer Rating: (based on 2 reviews)
List Price : $19.95
Our Price : $12.06
|
|
| |
|
Product Description |
|
“Cruel, merciful; peace-loving, a fighter; despising Negroes and letting them fight and vote; protecting slavery and freeing slaves.” Abraham Lincoln was, W. E. B. Du Bois declared, “big enough to be inconsistent.” Big enough, indeed, for every generation to have its own Lincoln?unifier or emancipator, egalitarian or racist. In an effort to reconcile these views, and to offer a more complex and nuanced account of a figure so central to American history, this book focuses on the most controversial aspect of Lincoln’s thought and politics?his attitudes and actions regarding slavery and race. Drawing attention to the limitations of Lincoln’s judgment and policies without denying his magnitude, the book provides the most comprehensive and even-handed account available of Lincoln’s contradictory treatment of black Americans in matters of slavery in the South and basic civil rights in the North. George Fredrickson shows how Lincoln’s antislavery convictions, however genuine and strong, were held in check by an equally strong commitment to the rights of the states and the limitations of federal power. He explores how Lincoln’s beliefs about racial equality in civil rights, stirred and strengthened by the African American contribution to the northern war effort, were countered by his conservative constitutional philosophy, which left this matter to the states. The Lincoln who emerges from these pages is far more comprehensible and credible in his inconsistencies, and in the abiding beliefs and evolving principles from which they arose. Deeply principled but nonetheless flawed, all-too-human yet undeniably heroic, he is a Lincoln for all generations. (20080218) |
| |
|
| |
|
Well written piece. |
Big Enough to Be Inconsistent: Abraham Lincoln Confronts Slavery and Race (The W. E. B. Du Bois Lectures) This is a well written book looking at the aspects that influenced Lincoln in his life and how they affected his stand on slavery and race. You get a look at not only how he felt personally but also how his love of the U.S. Constitution led to how he made many of his decisions regarding slavery.
|
| |
|
Moral ambiguity: Plumbing the complexity of Lincoln's attitudes on slavery and race |
Of the writing of books on Lincoln, there is, apparently, no end. Americans' fascination for the man seems to increase rather than diminish. But this fascination is rarely uninterested. Authors (and readers) on Lincoln tend to be hagiographers or debunkers, intent either on canonizing or damning him. As a consequence, it's frequently difficult to discover the real man underneath the legend.
In his Big Enough to Be Inconsistent, veteran Civil War scholar George Frederickson defends an interpretation of Lincoln's views on slavery and race that seeks a "middle ground" between the hagiographers who see the president as a proto-civil liberties advocate and the debunkers who see him as a hypocritical racist. Frederickson argues that Lincoln's views on both the institution of slavery and racial inequality changed over time, and that their fluidity suggests a position that's much more complex and ambiguous than hagiographers and debunkers allow. Like most of us, Lincoln's position on race wasn't entirely consistent. Moreover, Lincoln's ambivalence is complicated by the fact that he was a politician, and sometimes said things for public consumption that were more expedient than genuinely believed.
One thing is certain. Lincoln was never ambivalent in his moral opposition to slavery. But the racist assumptions he absorbed from his virulently Negrophobic home state of Illinois clustered to form views in the pre-war Lincoln that Frederickson doesn't hesitate to characterize as white supremicist, albeit a "relatively passive or reactive" sort (p. 84). Lincoln advocated a minimalist bestowal of free trade rights on blacks, but balked at defending full civil and moral equality. Moreover, his deep-seated Constitutional conservatism and his near-religious veneration of the Union made him a staunch advocate of gradual emancipation (a model defended by Henry Clay, one of Lincoln's heroes) and an equally staunch critic of abolitionists. Again like Clay, Lincoln was also a firm supporter of expatriation and colonization of freed blacks.
But the war experience began to change Lincoln's views. Gradually recognizing the value of using enslaved blacks against the Confederacy, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation primarily as a war effort. This reversed his position at war's beginning that "the Negro" shouldn't be "dragged" into the conflict (p. 90). Even after the Emancipation, Lincoln was reluctant to use blacks as soldiers, believing that they were fit only as laborers. But by August 1863, after witnessing the bravery and skill of "colored troops," Lincoln had changed his mind. This reversal also seems to have reconciled Lincoln to the possibility that free blacks had a legitimate place in American society, because he also dropped his insistence on colonization (much to the relief of his secretary John Hay, who always considered the strategy "a hideous and barbarous humbug" - p. 113). But Lincoln didn't reverse the conviction, born of his Constitutional conservatism, that civil liberties for blacks had to be determined by the states, not the federal government. Right up to the end of his life, then, the tension between his moral convictions and his political principles endured.
As Frederickson himself concedes, "none of this should be surprising to good historians" (p. xi). But the skill with which Frederickson makes his case for a "middle ground" between Lincoln-veneration and Lincoln-hatred, as well as the compact elegance of this little book, make it well worth reading. It would've been good had Frederickson reflected more on the curious tension between Lincoln's fidelity to the Constitution and his moral aversion to slavery. Is it appropriate, for example, that constitutionalism trumps immediate response to glaring moral wrongs? But Frederickson's reminder that inconsistency and ambiguity are almost always embedded in our ethical positions is a refreshing response to true believers of any stripe who insist that anything less than lockstep consistency is morally condemnable.
|
| |
|
|
|
