snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > History

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10 January 2013, 03:57 PM
pinqy pinqy is offline
 
Join Date: 20 February 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 11,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
pinqy, can I steal that line? It made my morning.
You may. Although it is one of the very few original things I've ever said.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10 January 2013, 04:13 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 3,295
Default

I'll try to credit you.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11 January 2013, 01:28 AM
Dasla's Avatar
Dasla Dasla is offline
 
Join Date: 15 April 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,813
Default

I bet it says nothing about him being a vampire hunter either.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11 January 2013, 02:24 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is online now
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,372
Default Nobody Said 'Racial Equality' in 1865: The Anachronistic English of 'Lincoln'

Civil War soldiers weren't named Kevin, and "peace talks" didn't exist yet: You can learn a lot from the ways that Tony Kushner's Oscar-nominated script strays from the vernacular of Lincoln's day.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...incoln/266990/
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06 February 2013, 10:24 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,570
Icon02 Lincoln error accuses Connecticut of being pro-slavery

A glaring historical inaccuracy has been spotted in Steven Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln’, putting the state of Connecticut on the wrong side of the slavery debate.

The Oscar nominated film wrongly depicts Connecticut congressmen as voting against the 13th Amendment to outlaw slavery, when, in reality all four of the state’s representatives voted in favour of the abolition in January 1865.

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/lincoln-e...175516656.html
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 19 September 2013, 02:39 PM
Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua is offline
 
 
Join Date: 15 September 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 17
Default

I notice the CNN article uses weasel words like 'some' pretty frequently, especially starting around section 3.

"'The Abolitionists' reveals that some of the most courageous anti-slavery activists were infected with the same white supremacist attitudes they crusaded against. White supremacy was so ingrained in early America that very few escaped its taint, even the most noble."

"Erica Armstrong Dunbar, a history professor featured in the film, says some abolitionists were uncomfortable with interracial relationships. They wouldn't walk with black acquaintances in public during the day, and refused to sit with them in church."

"Tell some historians that 'Lincoln freed the slaves' and one can virtually see the smoke come out of their ears."

Reporters like to do this, use weasel words in conjunction with hand-picked 'experts' who support their personal opinions to make a case that is debatable look more solid than it is. I can agree with the article's first two points but I think the last two they are trying to make their case around are very iffy.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 19 September 2013, 04:51 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 5,157
Default

Quote:
I notice the CNN article uses weasel words like 'some' pretty frequently, especially starting around section 3.

*snip*

"Erica Armstrong Dunbar, a history professor featured in the film, says some abolitionists were uncomfortable with interracial relationships. They wouldn't walk with black acquaintances in public during the day, and refused to sit with them in church."
Perhaps because there were those that did and those that didn't?

~Psihala
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 19 September 2013, 05:01 PM
Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua is offline
 
 
Join Date: 15 September 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psihala View Post
Perhaps because there were those that did and those that didn't?

~Psihala
The article seems to be trying to portray what could have been isolated occurrences as widespread however when it uses statements like:

"'The Abolitionists' reveals that some of the most courageous anti-slavery activists were infected with the same white supremacist attitudes they crusaded against. White supremacy was so ingrained in early America that very few escaped its taint, even the most noble."

"'No historian would doubt that Lincoln was a man of his times,' says Dunbar, author of 'A Fragile Freedom: African American Women and Emancipation in the Antebellum City.' 'He was a racist, and never truly believed that blacks could live in America after emancipation.'"

The article is arguing that essentially all abolitionists including Lincoln had white supremacist attitudes, so when it uses weasel words like 'some' to make its case, my alert meter goes off.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 19 September 2013, 05:14 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,344
Default

Are you arguing that Lincoln had no white supremacist attitudes?

ETA: You are being rather sparing with details on your argument. I would argue that "iffy" is a more weasely weasel word than "some".
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 19 September 2013, 05:25 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 66,947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua View Post
The article is arguing that essentially all abolitionists including Lincoln had white supremacist attitudes, so when it uses weasel words like 'some' to make its case, my alert meter goes off.
What's your evidence that the author is using the word "some" to mean "all" rather than "some"?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 19 September 2013, 05:26 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 5,157
Jaded

Quote:
The article seems to be trying to portray what could have been isolated occurrences as widespread however when it uses statements like:
You were saying something about wiggle words?

~Psihala
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 19 September 2013, 05:40 PM
Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua is offline
 
 
Join Date: 15 September 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
Are you arguing that Lincoln had no white supremacist attitudes?

ETA: You are being rather sparing with details on your argument. I would argue that "iffy" is a more weasely weasel word than "some".
I think Lincoln and the rest of the Republican Party from the 1860s to 1960s were very much the driving force in stopping slavery and producing civil rights reforms. It's not like Lincoln and the Republican Party just passed an Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment and that was the end of the matter. The following is just a summary of key legislation, there's far more mentioned here:

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

-1865: 13th amendment banning slavery passed by Republican president Abraham Lincoln with unanimous Republican support and most Democrats opposed.
-1866: 14th amendment giving due process and equal protection to all races passes with 100% of Democrats voting no in House and Senate.
-1870: 15th amendment giving all the right to vote regardless of race passes house with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition.
-1875: Civil Rights Act of 1875 passed by Republican president U.S. Grant with 92% Republican support and 100% Democrat opposition.
-1919: Republican House passes amendment giving women the right to vote, 85% of Republicans vote yes to 54% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans in Senate vote yes but nearly half of Democrats vote no.
-1924: Republican president Calvin Coolidge signs law passed by Republican Congress giving Native Americans the right to vote.
-1957: Republican president Dwight Eisenhower signs the Republican Party's 1957 civil rights act.
-1964: Civil Rights Act ending segregation and voter restrictions is passed with 80% of Republicans in the House and 82% in the Senate voting yes, but only 63% of Democrats voting yes in the House and 69% in the Senate. After passing the Civil Rights Act, Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson brags "I'll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
-1965: Voting Rights Act passed to remove racial voter discriminations against blacks and hispanics with 82% of Republicans voting yes to 78% of Democrats in the House, and 94% of Republicans in the Senate to 73% of Democrats in the Senate.
-1973: Only 2 of the 112 racist Democrats who opposed the civil rights act of 1964 actually switched to the Republican Party, John Jarman and Strom Thurmond. All the racist Democrats who'd opposed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s were the same ones who in the 1970s supported Roe v. Wade. They went straight from supporting lynching to supporting abortion.

Additional Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_R..._1964#By_party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_...Act#Vote_count
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...ts_legislation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-re..._b_933995.html

Lincoln was what would be considered a more moderate Republican at the time, and was certainly not as vocal in his opposition to slavery as the Radical Republicans were. They wanted complete uncompensated abolition of slaves and all civil rights and voting rights for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican

However, Lincoln like other Republicans of his time was clearly opposed to slavery. I think the attempt to brand him as supportive of 'white supremacist attitudes' is a recent effort to diminish over a century's worth of Republican support for civil rights.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 19 September 2013, 05:57 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 66,947
Default

I doubt there is any quantitative evidence as to how widespread such beliefs were among abolitionists.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 19 September 2013, 06:27 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,570
Jaded

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua View Post
"'No historian would doubt that Lincoln was a man of his times,' says Dunbar, author of 'A Fragile Freedom: African American Women and Emancipation in the Antebellum City.' 'He was a racist, and never truly believed that blacks could live in America after emancipation.'"
Yes, Lincoln believed that even after emancipation the white majority in the U.S. would not accept blacks as their social equals, a belief for which he had ample evidence. That doesn't mean he himself was a racist.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 19 September 2013, 06:32 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,570
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua View Post
I think Lincoln and the rest of the Republican Party from the 1860s to 1960s were very much the driving force in stopping slavery and producing civil rights reforms.
Perhaps, but the question posed was specifically about Lincoln, not about the entire history of the Republican Party.

One could be opposed to slavery and still believe that blacks were socially/morally/physically/politically/intellectually inferior to whites. I don't believe that Lincoln held those views, but an individual's opposition to slavery isn't in itself proof that that person harbored no racist views.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 19 September 2013, 06:46 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 3,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua View Post
Lincoln like other Republicans of his time was clearly opposed to slavery. I think the attempt to brand him as supportive of 'white supremacist attitudes' is a recent effort to diminish over a century's worth of Republican support for civil rights.
The Republican and Democratic parties basically switched places on the conservative - liberal spectrum (to the extent that there is actually a coherent conservative-liberal spectrum) over the course of the 20th century. Yes, in the 1860's the Republicans were the party of civil rights, and the party that wanted radical change. That doesn't mean that the party of the same name in the late 20th or early 21st century can ride on the coattails of that forever while behaving differently.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 19 September 2013, 06:50 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,570
Soapbox

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
That doesn't mean that the party of the same name in the late 20th or early 21st century can ride on the coattails of that forever while behaving differently.
Maybe not, but you're arguing against a point nobody in this thread has made. Jzyehoshua's post was specifically about the Republican Party from the 1860s to 1960s, not the Republican Party of today.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 19 September 2013, 07:02 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua View Post
However, Lincoln like other Republicans of his time was clearly opposed to slavery. I think the attempt to brand him as supportive of 'white supremacist attitudes' is a recent effort to diminish over a century's worth of Republican support for civil rights.
There is no doubt that Lincoln was opposed to slavery. That does not mean that he thought the races were equal. For instance, this quote from the Lincoln-Douglas debates:

Quote:
While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me, I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.
Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate (18 September 1858).
would seem to make it very clear that he considered black people to be an inferior race and did not favor all rights being extended to them. I am an admirer of Lincoln for many things, but I do not expect him to hold attitudes that were exceedingly rare in his culture and his time, which would have been the case if he had believed in full equality of the races. I do not admire or agree with the above quoted position, but it is clear that he expressed it. He was not a white supremacist in the sense of those who hold that view in this day and age, but I don't think it can be truthfully said that he was devoid of such sentiments.

ETA: As much as he was a man of his time, Lincoln in this quote still seems to me to understand the nuances of racial politics better than many people in modern times.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 19 September 2013, 07:04 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,570
Jaded

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua View Post
1964: Civil Rights Act ending segregation and voter restrictions is passed with 80% of Republicans in the House and 82% in the Senate voting yes, but only 63% of Democrats voting yes in the House and 69% in the Senate.

Only 2 of the 112 racist Democrats who opposed the civil rights act of 1964 actually switched to the Republican Party, John Jarman and Strom Thurmond.
"Black & Right"? Really, you're once again citing an openly partisan (not to say biased) source to try to make a serious argument on a debunking site?

Perhaps the reason Congressional Republicans had a higher overall higher rate of support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the reason those "racist Democrats" didn't switch parties is because the voting on that issue reflected regional sectionalism that was independent of party affiliation.

Among the southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia), Senate Democrats voted 1-21 against the bill (5%) while Republicans voted 0-1 (0%). In the House, southern Democrats voted 7-87 (7%) while southern Republicans voted 0-10 (0%). Among the remaining states, Democrats voted 145-9 in favor of the bill (94%) while Republicans voted 138-24 for the bill (85%).

In a nutshell, members of Congress from Southern states overwhelmingly voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while members of Congress from outside the South overwhelmingly voted in favor of it, regardless of party.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 19 September 2013, 08:16 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 3,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Maybe not, but you're arguing against a point nobody in this thread has made. Jzyehoshua's post was specifically about the Republican Party from the 1860s to 1960s, not the Republican Party of today.
Perhaps you're right. I didn't read it that way; but I might have been influenced by several letters recently written to the paper in this area which were explicitly attempting to make the argument that the Republican party of today should be seen as favorable to blacks because of the behavior of the Republican party of 1860 to the 1960's. It looked to me as if Jzyehoshua was trying to make the same argument, because of the bit about "recent efforts" in the post which I quoted; but I might be wrong, and I shouldn't have made the assumption based on letters which were almost certainly written by other people.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Time traveler" using cell phone in Chaplin film TrishDaDish Fauxtography 153 15 April 2013 04:48 AM
Cracked.com "27 Great Moments in History if the Internet Was Around." JoeBentley Snopes Spotting 6 03 April 2012 01:25 AM
SC Republican Fiercely Opposes "North American Union" and the "Amero" Bohemian Rhapsody in Blue Sightings 13 31 May 2008 11:46 PM
"War History" Magpye Inboxer Rebellion 7 05 March 2008 11:34 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.