Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream

Rating:
Summary: Stuff and Nonsense
Review: "Forced into Glory" is reverse racist nonsense.

Bennett doesn't even try to look into the extremely valid reasons why Abraham Lincoln couldn't or wouldn't go straight for Emancipation the moment he stepped foot in the White House.

Oh yeah, President Lincoln might have cracked a "racist" joke,so Lerone says the man is a racist no matter how many times he expressed horror as a young man when seeing a Slave Market, or interceding on behalf of Black Americans,or pushing the Emancipation policies when the time was right, or opening the doors of the White House to Frederick Douglass.

I just wonder how many times Lerone Bennett has cracked a racist joke or made derogatory remarks about White folks???

This book is an insult to memory of Abraham Lincoln, and not very historically valid. Not worth a star.

Rating:
Summary: Race [Always] Matters!
Review: As I read some of the negative and uninformed opinions of reviewers in regard to a book which I found to be quite informative, entertaining and enlightening, I decided that I needed to write a review as well and defend the author for challenging the social order status quo as well as the dominant discourse on Abraham Lincoln.Unfortunately in this country, critical thinkers are too often dismissed as "stupid" or unpatriotic. What I find especially interesting about Bennett's book is that so much of what he presents about "Honest" Abe such as his endorsement of the notorius Fugitive Slave Act, his desire to deport black people and his love of racist jokes and blackface minstrel shows, are facts, which can be proven with historical documents, that white historians generally don't reveal. Cornel West is absolutely right in that "race matters". We need historians of color, such as Mr. Bennett, to challenge and "color" the perspectives of white historians who, for the most part,sanitize history for the benefit of appeasing their consciousness (or lack of one) and out of a desire to avoid dealing with racial issues.Robert Jensen, a Professor of Journalism at the University of Texas in an article about white privilege, contends that the only REAL disadvantage of being white is that it prevents most whites from understanding racism.This would explain people's anger at Bennett for pointing out Lincoln's racism and outrageous and despicable white supremacist views. Thank you so much, Mr. Bennett for your courage and sense of integrity in spite of the adversity that you have and most likely will continue to experience.

Rating:
Summary: Forced into Gory Lincoln Revisionism
Review: Bennett's exercise in exasperation over Lincoln as the Great Emancipator displays his woeful ignorance about the principles and practices of American self-government. Lacking even a rudimentary grasp of how the ideas of human equality and the consent of the governed inform the constitutional operation of the American government, it's no wonder Bennett is unable to grasp Lincoln's political prudence.

For the definitive exposition of the Emancipation Proclamation, see Allen C. Guelzo's magisterial work, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery In America.

Bennett claims that Lincoln deliberately undermined his own emancipation proclamation by its selective application: "What Lincoln did--and it was so clever that we ought to stop calling him honest Abe--was to 'free' slaves in Confederate-held territory where he couldn't free them and to leave them in slavery in Union-held territory where he could have freed them." This argument implies that what Lincoln should have done regarding slavery concerned only military might, and not constitutional right. But Lincoln omitted the so-called "border slave states" of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware from the Emancipation Proclamation because they were not in rebellion against the federal government and therefore its citizens deserved the full protection of their constitutional rights.

The explicit exceptions Lincoln made of southern, slave-holding areas under Union-army control prior to January 1, 1863 (i.e., the counties constituting West Virginia and portions of Virginia and Louisiana) also fall under this category. When Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase argued for applying the Emancipation Proclamation to the exempted areas of Virginia and Louisiana, Lincoln replied he could only do so "without the argument of military necessity, and so, without any argument, except the one that I think the measure politically expedient, and morally right." He added, "Would I not give up all footing upon the constitution or law? Would I not thus be in the boundless field of absolutism?" Lincoln shows that a president, even acting as commander-in-chief, must exercise authority not as a dictator--benevolent or otherwise--but within the limits set forth by the Constitution. Lincoln wanted to rid the nation of slavery but not at the price of free government.

Bennett concludes, "There is thus nothing we can learn from Abraham Lincoln about race relations, except what not to say or do." By reading Forced Into Glory, one learns nothing from Lerone Bennett about the requirements of statesmanship within a constitutional republic. Lincoln's devotion to the Constitution and union took precedence over the immediate abolition of slavery, but in a way that set the nation back on course to ridding itself of slavery. Miss this, as Bennett does from cover to cover, and you misunderstand the Emancipation Proclamation and its connection to the Union war effort.

Rating:
Summary: Mr. Bennett seems to have malice for all charity for none
Review: Here we go again, trying to rewrite history so that it's more politically correct for a certain segment of the population.

The author takes quotes out of context, does not know his history and seems to seek out only the quotes and evidence to support his supposition.

The author would have us believe that everything that has been written about Lincoln in the past 138 years since Lincoln's death is wrong. So, we can either believe the thousands of historians who have written about Lincoln or we can believe this tale.

I wish I had the option to give it "no stars" because it's not even worthly of one star.

Rating:
Summary: Comment
Review: Lerone Bennet piece, is a work of art unmistakingly near flawless. How can historians hide truth, like Lincoln said "History is not history unless its the truth". So there was never any truth of history.

So was it okay for Lincoln to be a racist in the nineteeth century, maybe it was but is that any reason to be one. Even at that time there were whites who were so liberal you would have to think they were people of color. The people who keep writing awful things, are you blind, are you so blind that you cannot see that Lincoln only wanted to enslave all blacks or to deport them and had not shown any sympathy for the slave or the liberal whites who were killed by mobs of whites. Lincoln only wanted a "White Utopia".

I believe the people who keep using the race card againt Bennet are in fact racists if they believe in the myth so much that they would die for it. Sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too. All colors and races realize one thing you have been lied to, you have been bamboozled all throughout history and its not going end here.

Rating:
Summary: Lincoln Died for Our Sins?
Review: Once you've read this book, you will never look at Abraham Lincoln in the same way. Bennett writes a polemic here, but it is a well-researched and passionate effort. Although some of his conclusions are suspect, I respect the basic premise of this book, which is that Lincoln was a thorough going racist. Bennett proves that Lincoln's political mentor was Senator Henry Clay, a Kentucky slave owner. Lincoln exhibited racist speech using the pejorative for "Negro" up until the last days of his life. He consistently frequented "black face" comedy shows that denigrated blacks in stereotypical ways. Lincoln always supported fugitive slave laws in Illinois and nationally. The Lincoln described by Bennett completely missed the concept of full emancipation for all African Americans. His lukewarm Emancipation Proclamation was only an attempt to stave off the radical abolitionists who were pressing for full freedom for all Black Americans. Lincoln's Proclamation promised to emancipate blacks in areas currently in rebellion (in which Lincoln had no jurisdiction), and did not emancipate slaves in the areas that had not seceded or were militarily re-occupied. It was a halfway measure designed to obfuscate Lincoln's true agenda, i.e., gradual emancipation and/or deportation for colonization of the native born African American population. Bennett does a credible job showing that Lincoln's speeches, including the Gettysburg Address, were high sounding but did not include African Americans in the great American ideal of freedom for all. "All men are created equal" did not include blacks until Lincoln had been assassinated and was not able to obstruct the final version of the thirteenth amendment. Eye-opening commentary includes a discussion of how Lincoln pursued the War for two years with pro-slavery Democrat generals like McClellan, Halleck and Pope. Certainly Lincoln's incompetence was responsible for extending the War, causing loss of life for over 650,000 Americans North and South. After reading Bennett, Lincoln comes across as ambitious, indecisive, manipulative, misguided, decidedly racist and desperately craving some kind of long lasting historical legacy. Lincoln was slow coming to grips with the true nature of the War. Lincoln maintained all along that this War was being fought for Union, failing to ever grasp the eventual importance of the slave issue except to use blacks as a political pawn piece to win the war. Lincoln comes across as Machiavellian and insensitive when he finally issues the Emancipation Proclamation only as a military strategy to keep England and France out of the War. However, Bennett fails to address the impact of Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers after he had successfully maneuvered the South into firing on Sumter. Before his call for the 75,000, Virginia and North Carolina had not seceded and were not predisposed to go out. By his actions, he forced these states out and then proceeded to ineptly preside over a botched, bloody, protracted war that could have been averted by more clear headed, adroit diplomacy before the initial Battle of Manassas. Manassas led to Shiloh and, by then, the need to justify somehow the already horrific loss of life. Certainly, once the eleven states seceded, it was the effective end of American slavery because then the slaves could escape across international borders. A slave in Mississippi, once into Indiana, would have been free from pursuit, thus signaling the ultimate demise of the slave system. Lincoln's myopia regarding this key point precipitated not only the war deaths of so many Americans, but also set in motion the raw emotions and scapegoating that marked the brutal "reconstruction" of the South. The pursuit of the war and reconstruction only exascerbated racist feelings that whites felt toward blacks and necessitated the Civil Rights marches led by leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. almost a century after this sad period in American history. Americans today are still dealing with the issues that Lincoln did not deal with during his tenure as president. Bennett's demonization of southern leaders like Robert E. Lee show his lack of overall perspective as to why Southerners fought for their respective states. He doesn't acknowledge that in the South over 90% of the fighting men never owned slaves and were fighting for their families, homes and farms. The Union invader was fighting only for Union, not emancipation (if you listen closely to what Bennett's Lincoln was about). Abraham Lincoln was undoubtedly the deeply flawed, morally shallow politician as Bennett paints him, but Bennett interprets the results only as a twentieth century black militant. When you visit the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. after reading this book, you will read the Gettysburg Address in a different, less glorious light, and you will sincerely wonder why Lincoln merits such an exalted position on the National Mall. You will realize that the mythologized Lincoln did not die Christ-like for his country's sins. He was not the Man of the Age, but a man who was given the highest position in the American Pantheon because of his tragic death and the position power that he held during a catastrophic historical period (that he helped to make much worse). Another book on Lincoln that has been virtually banned for decades is Edgar Lee Masters' Lincoln The Man, which gives an equally withering testimonial to the man behind the myth, but from the perspective of a Copperhead. I'm giving Forced into Glory five stars for originality and the courage to write and publish it. This book is so "outside the box", it will probably be censured by the mainstream media. Many will speak negatively about it, but will not take the trouble to actually read it and give it a chance.

Rating:
Summary: Wow! What a book! Who should read this?
Review: This is fantastic material. Who should read this book? If your'e a history buff, a Civil Rights workers, a Lincoln Buff, A Civil War reenactor, or an open minded person with a desire to learn about Lincoln, his life, and his actions not only from his birth, but through the Civil war, to his death.

This book is extensively well documented. Nothing is quoted from Lincoln that is not referenced; which all history buffs admire.

I feel the author is correct in stating America was originally built and framed for White America; and that Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln REALLY did not believe Black people were the equals of white people. ( as a matter of fact, Lincoln is quoted very often stating just the opposite) There is an excellent case made that Lincoln was terrified of having four million slaves freed in America; as well as Lincoln continued efforts to send blacks to Liberia.)

While I give this 5 stars, and it richly deserves it, I do find a common misconception, which does not detract from the quanitity of great facts.

The flaw is the author gives the impression that General Robert E. Lee was in favor of Slavery; when such was certainly not the case. ( The is no reference to this, and I do not believe any such exist) to the opposite view, is General Lees own words-"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not
acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political
evil." - Col. Robert E. Lee, USA - December 27, 1856

The other assumption is the mistaken belief that slaves were not allowed to read. If I may state the Virginia law--

The state of Virginia NEVER had any law that prohibited the teaching of slaves/Negroes to read and write. A master could teach his own slaves, and he could ALSO allow anyone else to teach them. In short, it was up to the master. The law is Stat. 1830-31, p. 107. That law dealt with "unlawful assemblages", and said in part, "(a)nd every assemblage of negroes for the purpose of instruction in reading and writing, or in the night time for any purpose, shall be an unlawful assembley." However, the previous section, commencing the definition of these "unlawful assemblies," EXPRESSLY STATES, that they are unlawful IF HELD WITHOUT THE MASTER'S CONSENT.

Overall I highly commend this author, and would certainly love to hear him speak. He brings a totally different light to the average ( white persons) view of history, and Abe Lincoln.

I also highly recommend every black person read this book, that believes the Myth that Lincoln fought to have the slaves Freed.

This book is a real eye-opener. ( You might want to use a yellow highlighter to mark your references when you read this great book)

Well done, Mr. Bennett