Conversations with History: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery with Eric Foner
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 чер 2024
- Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes Pulitzer Prize winning historian Eric Foner for a discussion of his book, "The Fiery Trial." The conversation focuses on Lincoln's relationship to slavery over the course of his career. As Lincoln moved from local, to state and then national politics, he grew in stature and his understanding of the complexity of the issue matured. The discussion focuses on the key dimensions of his intellectual and political growth including Lincoln's background, his command of language in his speeches and writings, and his remarkable skills as a political leader. The discussion concludes with a comparison of Lincoln and President Obama and the political situations they confront.
Series: "Conversations with History" [11/2011] [Public Affairs] [Humanities] [Show ID: 22930]
The best interview with Eric Foner I have seen. The questions are insightful. I especially appreciated the initial questions about Foner’s origins and background.
These conversations with history are essential. Thank you. Long time fan
Loved the book The Fiery Trial.
Good free lecture for me, Thanks.
Wow,Mark DC,try reading Foner's books more carefully.Lincoln's views on
blacks and slavery did evolve.Also for those who bash Lincoln,we need to acknowledge he was a man of his times.Lincoln was an imperfect man.
Their are some who want to deify him and others want to tarnish him.
Eric Foner and other good historians take the middle ground,imperfect,but a great President.
You can take whatever ground you choose but there's no denying Lincoln was a racist a tyrant and the most unconstitutional president in history.
Great description
Speeches and newspapers were listened to intently in the 19th century.
"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." ~ Lincoln, on whether blacks - slave or free - should be allowed in the new territories in the west, October 16, 1854.
Oh my god! Cap locks! I cede my argument. Thanks goodness the country has people like you to kiss boots.
Thomas DiLorenzo has good books to read about Lincoln.
DiLorenzo is an economist, not a historian, who misrepresents historical facts. He eviscerates Lincoln to promote his shamelessly political agenda.
He changed his mine over time, Raven.
Please. Only for political reasons. It sure wasnt for moral reasons.
If equivocation was a person=Lincoln
watching this so i can fall asleep
"CRITICISM IS HOW I LEARN! " 🤔😉😏😊
21:36
What about Lincoln's support of wage slavery in the form of company pay notes, IE the company store debtors system. Some can make the argument that this system was even more profitable than slavery. Less physically brutal but still psychologically damning in that you can not escape the company store. We if you are honest with yourself live in very much the same company store system only it's a banker institution Supplemented by corporate pay stubs.
What did Lincoln say about his critics?
"You're under arrest."
Foner's assertion that Lincoln welcomed criticism definitely tickled my funny bone.
==The Real Reason Behind The Civil War==
In 1775, the Revolution began in Massachusetts. When the Northerners united in pushing for Independence from Britain, they were surprised how fast the slave-owning Southerners joined them. What was kept secret was how the rich Southern plantation owners owed million$ to London banks and how London markets took 40% of the profits from their cotton and tobacco exports. A successful rebellion meant they wouldn't have to pay back these debts and they'd have full control of their markets.
Fast-forward to their grandsons in 1860. Lincoln's election produced an instant call for secession from the slave-owning Southerners. What was kept secret was how the rich Southern plantation owners owed a billion dollar$ to New York City banks and how NYC markets took 40% of the profits from their cotton and tobacco production. A successful rebellion meant they wouldn't have to pay back these debts and they'd have full control of their markets.
I wouldn't say further right. He's probably center, leaning right.
I found this video after reading Dinesh D'Souza's book. The guy is a Lincoln sycophant and was very critical of Eric Foner in his book. So I had to hear Foner for himself. I was expecting an anti-Lincoln racist diatribe, but I actually found this interview quite reasonable, and he looks upon Lincoln more positively than I expected. Still there are things that were unforgivable, like suspension of habeus corpus, nationalization of the railroads, jailing of critical newspaper editors. That can't be overlooked either.
Lincoln freed the slaves!
D'Souza is a HUCSTER ( LIER )
The slave power was attempting to destroy the Nation.
The south stepped out of the protection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Put them in chains!
Do you think the Taliban deserves Constitutional Protections 🤔🤔🇺🇸
@@OldHeathen1963 What little of your post makes sense is devoid of facts or logic or just your own opinion. And by the way it's spelt "liar" and "huckster." I don't normally point things like this out but if you're going to take that tone then I'll make an exception.
The succession was about not being able to expand Slavery. Lincoln and the Blk Republicans were about maintaining slavery and not expanding it. So Slavery was not in danger except for western expansion.
Yet slavery would always expand within that Confederacy if it had been left alone. Jefferson Davis said that it is all they wanted, but even leaving the South alone would have caused the destruction of the South over time. Eventually the population of 4 Million black Americans in Slavery, expanding in those states would not have tolerated the abuses and would have risen up to overthrow the masters in a most brutal way, probably eliminating them with outside privateer help at first, then whole alliances...It would have ended far uglier than the civil war did...Jefferson Davis spent just a few years in Prison despite being a pretty honorable man and took the hit politically for many other Secessionists. VP Alexander Stephens eventually served in Congress again--remarkably. In some ways the Southern elites got off without the kind of punishment they would have received in a much more authoritarian society...the north kind of forgave them of sorts--did not break up their farms and give them to the black slaves with the 40 acre and a mule policy.
One of only a few slave societies left in the entire world at that time, the alliances against a southern empire left alone would have been very powerful, far more than just the North.
Only issue is the criticism of Obama. I agree to an extent however presidents today have to deal with significantly more criticism due to the reach and technology we have available relative to the 1800s
The Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery. It was fought over the states rights of secession. Lincoln even said in his first inaugural address that he had no intention of interfering with the issue of slaves in the southern states.
Raven09s it was over slavery. It was states rights to maintain and spread slavery vs a growing people who saw the only way to halt and destroy slavery was through the federal government. That argument is only maintained to save the shame of the south for wasting a generation of men to hang onto a barbaric system.
@@terrygraham222 You have to make it about slavery in an attempt to justify and save the shame of an illegal unconstitutional war fought over money while dismissing all of Lincoln's unconstitutional acts..
The other part of slavery that people don't seem to take into account is that a war wasn't necessary in order to end slavery. There are multiple countries during the same time period who abolished slavery without civil wars. England is one very large example. Lincoln didn't start the war over slavery. He started the war in order to keep a federal choke hold on the states in order to keep them from doing their constitutional right of leaving the union.
The Amendment process to the Constitution and its protection of slavery would have made it much more difficult than any other country.
Raven09s :
Firstly, the constitution does not mention secession. If the South wanted a legal basis for secession it could have tried for a favourable ruling from Chief Justice Taney's Supreme Court. But no-one did, even though Taney had written the outrageously pro-slavery Dred Scott decision.
Secondly, have you ever done serious research on the Old South? If you had you would know slavery was seen as the driving force of southern prosperity by its leaders. Only war was going to end slavery. Imagine the control planters had in literally owning their workforce! No wages to pay, no strikes, no need to convince their workers to not go and work for a better deal! Read "The Half Has Never Been Told" by Edward E Baptist. He shows slavery as the most important thing in American capitalism prior to the Civil War.
He was a realist and wasn’t expecting to end slavery but he did not budge in that he wanted to prevent the expansion of slavery. That was the whole reason for the establishment of the Republican Party. To prevent its expansion. He was expecting that slavery would end anyway in time but at least it should not increase its hold on the country.
How else do you, as the President, keep the Union in tact? That was Lincoln’s primary goal aside from seeing the end of slavery. Civil War was made a requirement as soon as Southern Democrats split from the rest of the country. Secession was not a constitutional right
He started the war??? The Rebels started bombing Fort Sumner, that’s what started the war! You idiot!!!
Yeah, I get that Lincoln "evolved" on the slavery issue, but Foner committed a huge error of omission by failing to take into account Lincoln's endorsement of the Corwin Amendment. Had it been ratified, the federal government would have been prohibited from ever legislating against slavery.
How is *that* a path toward gradual emancipation?
Before southern secession the Republican Party had no plan to use federal power to end slavery. The actual plan was to surround the slave states with free states and choke off all potential for slavery to grow. The growing slave population needed new slave states to move into, or even invasions of Cuba, Mexico and/or Central America. One of the first things the Confederate Congress did was draft a proposed constitution for the future state of Arizona, prior to launching a failed invasion west from Texas. The Republicans thought the slave states would be forced to abolish slavery one by one if squeezed hard enough by the federal government. There was no plan for a 13th amendment to abolish slavery in one stroke until 1864 when even loyal slave states like Kentucky and Delaware kept rejecting Lincoln's attempts to get them to agree to abolition. At the time of the Corwin amendment's passing Lincoln and the Republicans agreed the Constitution denied the federal government power to end slavery in individual states.
@Andrew Fusco Better check on your dates and circumstances, buddy boy! 😲🙄
The days of The LOST CAUSE are OVER!! 🇺🇸
🤡💩
😡🤮
@@OldHeathen1963 Check my dates? Well, if a simple Google search is beyond your ability, I can confirm that Lincoln's Inaugural Address took place on March 4, 1861 -- where he explicitly endorsed the Corwin Amendment.
Got any other brain teasers for me, my emoji-crazed friend?
@@neilpemberton5523What the Repulican Party did want to do is to prevent the "expansion" of slavery. I would add that it is possible to be anti-slavery , to be an abolishnist an be racist. There were "slavowners" who did not like slavery. Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson. The "system " was evil. In some Southern states it was illegal to free your slaves. I do not know of any contemporary American who would support, at least publically the return of slavery. Not even Conservative Republicans. 🤔😉😏🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
@@neilpemberton5523 Between 1850 and 1860 there were lack of slaves in the Cotton King areas. The border states as manly Kentucky huge numbers slaves exported to Deep South! 25% slaves were in Kentucky earlier and below 20% in 1860! The slaves were very few in Texas when joined to USA in 1845 and 30% in 1860. Funny Texas changed Kentucky to be unionist in 1861, like the Europian emmigrants Missouri mainly St Louis?
Habeas Corpus cannot be sustained during a civil war. Of course that can be said in locations where battles were occurring. However it was happening in New York, Boston, and Philly.
Not to mention Lincoln is the one that started the war by basically pushing federal troops into location where they could instigate the south into action and respond. Yes I do agree that the FED is a private bank and has no authority to do what it does so we agree on that.
from the ministry of bro william branham
No man can be a Christian and believe in slavery. Sometime ago in a certain museum I was walking one day. I seen an old colored man with just a little rim of hair around his head and white like wool on a sheep. And he was looking on. He had his hat in his hand, and after while he looked over at a little glass thing, and he jumped back real quick.
JEHOVAH_JIREH TULARE_CA 02-26-61
21 The tears went rolling down his cheeks, and he went... Looked like he was praying. I watched the old fellow for a few minutes; I walked up to him. I said, "Uncle," I said, "what's the--what's the--the praying about? What excited you?" He looked at me real strange. He said, "I was thanking God." I said, "Thanking God for what may I ask?" I said, "I'm a minister. I'd like to know what it is. I just watched you." He said, "Come here." Said, "Looky there." I said, "I don't see nothing but a dress, a woman's dress." He said, "But see that stain on there?”
“Yes." He said, "That's the blood of Abraham Lincoln." He said, "If you could put your hands around my side, you'd feel the marks of the slave belt." He said, "That blood took the slave belt off of me." I thought, "If a Negro could feel that way about the blood of Abraham Lincoln that took the slave belt off of him, what ought a Christian to do when he sees the Blood of Jesus Christ Who took his soul from hell, his soul from slavery, the things of the world. Why would we go back and be the devil's slave again?"
JEHOVAH_JIREH TULARE_CA 02-26-61
For example, Dred Scott decision, according to Lincoln and Davis, was about defining blacks as inferior, as "not persons" for purposes of Constitution. Lincoln said that to expose it, Davis said that to brag about it. The very essense of Dred Scott decision was the "non-human" aspect of blacks. How does Foner handle it? Some nonsense about "Congress rights" -- no, it was about BLACKS being not "persons" - not human- for purposes of Constitution. Remember, Davis bragged about it.
I think you need to go outside. Take a walk or something. I'm not even sure what you think it is that I believe here...
@ItchMyFoot "Trash" Lincoln? Foner's pretty clearly pro-Lincoln. If anything, he goes too far, relegating Butler's story about how long Lincoln held to "resettlement" plans for the ex-slaves to a simple footnote in which he dismisses it.
Emancipation a pragmatic, humanistic policy? It caused slaves to join the Union and caused some southerners to desert in order to go home and protect their families from the freed slaves.
Lincoln was follower of Clay. Yes Clay was slave holder in Kentucky, but he fought in the border states for a step by step abolution. I think secretly Lincoln bielived similar thing, but he was A POLITITIAN! The pure (idealist) abolutionists got 1% vote on election in North, so he was not 100% definite on this area. It may be he was a FREE SOIL party in the new republican party, but interesting his early political time he voted against (with other 4 politicians) in the house of representatives of illinois to forbide the agaitation against the slavery system! It may be the Deep South politicians knew Lincoln was not 100% John Brown, but they knew he was almost 100% Henry Clay with a step by step slow abolition in the future.
There is something good about Obama, that can be said without lying?
This whole thread reeks of racism, veiled, overt, covert. Some of it trained into the commenter, some is someone being deluded and/or lying and mosty lying to themselves or immersed in self-delusion.. Lincoln evolved, read the first Inaugural Address and compare it to the second. The first is simply echoing the slavery guardian Buchanan, the second says, 'we all know this was about slavery'. and then goes on to acknowledge the wealth "piled up by 250 years of unrequited servitude". Unrequited is uncompensated, unpaid in this context. Therein lies his greatness, whatever evil he did like hang natives whose land was being stolen from them.
Could Douglass be wrong about Lincoln? Could Lincoln NOT have been radical and swift and zealous? Douglass said he was. Douglass said LIncoln "gave you a country". Douglass said Lincoln, given what he faced by fuking scum(not his words) did fucking GREAT (not his words). If you don't know what Lincoln was up against, and you don't, nothing he did or said will make sense. If you do know, as Douglass knew, everything he did will make sense.
Lincoln didn't care about slavery. He said that if he could end the war by freeing the slaves he would, if he could end the war without freeing the slaves he would, and if he could end the war by freeing some slaves he would. He was concerned with one thing and one thing only, and that was the the dominance of the federal government over the states rights to leave the union.
That letter to Greeley was a political move to soften the public for the already written but not yet released Emancipation Proclamation .
When he said he'd free no slaves that was clearly a red herring, since Union generals had been freeing slaves who came into their lines for over a year. Also the slaves in Washington DC and all US territories had also been freed. When he said he'd free all the slaves that also was a red herring, since he'd spent months trying without success to get the loyal slave states to agree to compensated emancipation. Thus freeing only some but not all was his next course of action. You have to keep what he said in its narrow historical context.
Really liked what Foner said about Lincoln being humble towards criticism,he welcomed it.Obama could have learned alot from Lincoln.A great President,no doubt about it.
And Trump could have learned even more from Lincoln! 🤔😉😏
Nothing anti-slavery about the antebellum Republican Party.
Thats one of the most ignorant comments I've ever read.
Ive already educated you far beyond what you deserve. You are welcome
project much?
Black people owe Lincoln big time and should be forever greatefull.
Itchmyfoot- credible historians understand that basing your entire argument from ONE primary source is fallacious. Historians like Foner understand that sources are biased. All sources are biased. Douglass was black and a former slave so his source reflects that. You can't begin with a bias and base your entire argument on the weak edifice of one source. What you should do is evaluate many primary sources from the period and then form a coherent thesis.
The first wife of Stephen Douglas had plantation with slaves in Mississippi state! After his wife's death Stephen Douglas became slave holder! So we look at Stephen Douglass as a slave holder! Funny Carl Sandberg Lincoln biography does not mention Stephen Douglas was SLAVE HOLDER!!!!!!!
I does not understand the historians why does not mention this????????????????????????
In 1847, a man who looked up to Adams came to serve in Congress as freshman legislator. Soon,Adams took this man under """" mentor- they grew so close that this man was a pallbearer at Adams’ funeral. After one term in the legislature this man went home, and Adams later died after serving 28 years in the legislature- seeing none of the fruits of his labor. Now some time afterAdams’ protégé returned home, he ended up running again for office, and again, and again. In fact, he lost multiple elections, but one of the elections he did win was the most important one- the race for the seat of the President of theUnited States. This man’s name was Abraham Lincoln. He went on to be one the most important Presidents in our nation’s history- and the one who ended up freeingAmerica’s slaves
What slaves did he free?? Don't drink the kool-aid without reading Lincoln's first 1861 state of the union. Lincoln wanted to colonize slaves and ALSO colonize free people of color....
I know it's an old video, but those guys were so wrong about Lincoln. He was a racist and politician. The emancipation proclamation did not free any slaves. It specifically excluded slaves that were in the Union's states and could have been freed. Those guys should familiarize themselves with historical documents.
In 1863 the war still hung in the balance. Lincoln needed the support of the loyal slave states, and risked losing it if he poorly rewarded their loyalty by freeing their slaves. In late 1864 with his second term in the bag and the war in its final stages he okayed the 13th amendment to end slavery forever. The timeline of events was determined by what was politically feasible at each stage.
@@neilpemberton5523 I agree, in other words, he was manipulative politician, not a guy that freed slaves.
People should read up on the EP better. Lincoln had no Constitutional power to free slaves, unless under war conditions.
@@SandfordSmythe many people don’t know those facts because the narrative (propaganda) with respect to Lincoln showed him in a positive but misleading way, as a man who freed slaves and that’s simply not true.
Where did you hear about Northern Congressman wanting to arrest Lincoln? Give me a citation from a respected book, article, magazine or something else. Not from your own delusional mind.
Yikes. Calm down
I don't agree with the South and I also believe the South seceded to protect slavery. But criticizing a respected, Pulitzer-prize winning historian who obviously knows far more than you is pure arrogance. Foner isn't bashing Lincoln, which is obvious if you would bother to even read his book. Did u know that Lincoln, in 1865, wanted to give black soldiers and in his words, "the very intelligent", blacks voting rights? John Wilkes Booth was in the crowd while Lincoln was saying this...
@Right Libertarian Cite your sources for your options. Every historian worth a damn knows the evidence is simply overwheming that slavery caused southern secession.
@Right Libertarian Cite your sources to make your case. It's about evidence, and you don't have any apparently.
@Right Libertarian The South seceded over slavery. Thats what you denied and you are wrong.
Foner is a dork
Another broken record from Berkeley