News & Politics

Latest Claim From UW-Madison SJWs: Lincoln Owned Slaves

Latest Claim From UW-Madison SJWs: Lincoln Owned Slaves
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the U.S., loved to paint, so he painted this portrait of Abe Lincoln. This and a portrait of George Washington are the only Presidential portraits ever painted by another President. (AP Photo)

Abraham Lincoln had a lot on his plate during his presidency, so we don’t think about the laws he signed or major acts of diplomacy during his time in office. After all, he was fighting to not just keep our nation whole, but also to destroy the institution of slavery.

So I can only imagine how surprised old Abe would be if he learned that he, the man who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, was also a slave owner.

From The Daily Signal:

The activist group is now demanding a disclaimer be put up saying Lincoln was complicit in the murder of Native Americans.

Why would they be so angry about Lincoln?

“Everyone thinks of Lincoln as the great, you know, freer of slaves, but let’s be real: He owned slaves, and as natives, we want people to know that he ordered the execution of native men,” said one of the protesters.

“Just to have him here at the top of Bascom is just really belittling.”

This claim from the protester is patently false. The Great Emancipator grew up in poverty and never owned slaves.

Not only that, but his debates with fellow Illinois statesman Stephen A. Douglas offer some of the clearest reasons for why the institution of slavery violated the American creed.

Of course he didn’t own slaves. Only an idiot would think that he did.

Contrary to what some might believe, every white person in this country prior to 1864 didn’t own slaves. Lincoln most definitely didn’t, yet here we have this claim, a claim made by someone who thinks they’re educated enough to pontificate on why Lincoln was problematic.

This is something the left needs to remember, however.

If the social justice jihadis will come after Lincoln like this, who is next? Everyone is on the table, after all. Each and every one of us has the potential to be someone future generations will decide is problematic, especially with the precedence being set today. Any view, no matter how mainstream it was at the time, can render anyone too problematic for remembering later.

Any single one of us has a view that could easily be too problematic tomorrow, thus forcing people to relegate all the good anyone does to the dustbin of history because of something that wasn’t even controversial 150 years previously.

I somehow doubt the social justice zealots can even comprehend that fact, though.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member