Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream

by Lerone Bennett Jr.

Book Overview

Beginning with the argument that the Emancipation Proclamation did not actually free African American slaves, this dissenting view of Lincoln's greatness surveys the president's policies, speeches,... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0874850851
• ISBN13: 9780874850857
• Release Date: February 2000
• Publisher: Johnson Publishing Company (IL)
• Length: 652 Pages
• Weight: 2.75 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.7" x 6.1" x 9.5"

Customer Reviews

Why the Civil War was really fought

And we both know which side ends up writting the history we end up reading. The answer? It's always the side that wins. So any time we read war history that shows favor to the winning side, we have to do our own reaserch and make sure the history that we're reading isn't skewed a bit to exonorate the side that won (in this case, The Union). There were also people from the North who were pro-confederate, other pro-slavery, others still were abolitionists. The Civil War wasn't about slavery but about taxing crops, livestock, and textiles from the South to the North. Who produced most of the crops, livestock, and textiles? The slaves. What kind of farms were the slaves in? Remember, in order to have a slave you had to afford to buy the slave(s), so not all farms would have slaves. The ones that did were plantations (multi-farms) of many little farms on one property. They certainly could afford many slaves to work the fields. So if the slaves are the ones producing these goods, and they're being ordered to have these goods sent to the North, wouldn't that mean that the North is benefiting from the existence of having slaves? The ones that received Southern textiles, livestock and crops didn't want the slaves to be freed, because if they were then that would mean they very well might be out of business. Now what about those other farms that couldn't afford having even one slave? This senario was the majority of the people who lived in the South. Not many people (per capita) had the money to live on a plantation and afford the price of buying slaves. The people who lived there just had to work the fields themselves. They might have supplied a small portion of their goods to the North, but probably not enough to make an impact since the plantations were much larger and could put out more products than a small farm could ever dream of. To make things worse on the Southerners, the North had been taxing the South on its goods as an export. But the North wanted the South to stay with the USA and just let the North walk all over the South with over-taxing the people without the need to. Doesn't this sound like a the reason for the Revolution War, "Taxation without representation?" Well I just hope that I opened some people's eyes to the true reason why the Civil War was fought. I look forward reading this book, as it goes against what most historians say about Lincoln. It sounds like an intriguing and intuitive read.

Does what a great history book should--gives a different perspective

Lerone Bennett has accomplished a feat few historians have tried, and at which even fewer have succeded--giving us a new perspective on Abraham lincoln and his presidency. It is by now well established that the Emancipation Proclamation did not, in fact, free anyone--it applied only to those areas of the Confederacy over which the union exerted no control. However, Bennett takes this well established fact and goes much, much further. By adopting the perspective of the slave, he demonstrates that not only didn't Lincoln free anyone, but he in fact succeeded in postponing freedom for hundreds of thousands of slaves. Prior to the Proclamation, Congress had already enacted the Confiscation Act, which authorized the Army to free the slaves of anyone in rebellion against the United States. the effect of the Proclamation was to stop the Confiscation Act from being enforced--thus relegating every slave in territory conquered by the Union Armies to additional months of slavery. Further, Bennett makes the compelling case that this was not an inadvertent failing (or a product of necessity) but an intentional strategy by Lincoln. Tracking Lincoln's history from his earliest years as an Illinois legislator, Bennett successfully argues that Lincoln never wanted Blacks to be able to live on equal terms with Whites. Even after the civil war was won, lincoln was still against freeing the slaves; trather, he wanted them deported to Central America or Africa. As Bennett notes, had such a mass deportation plan for ethnic minorities been proposed in our century, it would properly have been labelled genocide (think of the Serbian plans to remove all Albanians from Kosovo). In other words, from the slaves' perspective, Lincoln believed in ethnic cleansing, not emancipation. Finally, Bennett disputes the common response that Lincoln had no choice politically. First, he cites numerous private statements of Lincoln to demonstrate that he was, at heart, a racist. Second, he cites the example of many other politicians (e.g., Illinois' own Lymann Trumbull)who took a stand for real equality and emancipation, yet continued to win elections. Whether you agree with Bennett's analysis or not, it provides an extremely interesting antidote to the Lincoln history machine which routinely labels him our greatest president. As I said at the beginning, one can ask little more of a history book than the ability to make you think about well established history from an entirely different perspective.

Race [Always] Matters!

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.

Emancipator by Default

Book Review: Lerone Bennett's Forced Into Glory: Abe Lincoln's White DreamThe truism that personal interpretation fashions personal reality is apparent even in bookreviews. We believe what we want to believe. We want to believe what grinds our ownaxe the best. Considering how easy it is with web resources to access any kind ofinformation, it is amazing that reviewers like Thomas Judd, who are quite taken with theirown importance, have not demonstrated the responsibility to look up Lincoln's originalspeeches, especially the Lincoln-Douglas debates he cites, for their own and their readers'enlightenment rather than parrotting some convenient "authority". Neither are JamesMcPhereson's flippant comments are of help to the prospective reader.A further truism applies to Bennett's book: history is written by the winning side, andmartyrs are unquestioned heroes. Bennett's `agenda', in the present reviewers opinion, istaking an important step in destroying a myth which historically has done more harm thangood, and continues to do so, for both black and white. To his discredit, Lincoln was in fact a racist, both by 19th, 20th, and 21st centurystandards IF we agree on a definition of `racist' as someone who holds one race superiorto one or more others. Such a standard is not affected by era. To his credit, he was`honest Abe'. He flaunted his racism in numerous documents available to anyone who isinterested in reading them. His debates with Stephen Douglas (which obviously Mr. Juddhasn't read) were widely publicized at the time, his correspondence with Horace Greeley(and others) teems with assurances that he does not consider `the negro' anything butsubservient to the white in any regard whatever. This is spelled out most clearly in hisfirst inaugural address (...I have no purpose .... to interfere with the institution ofslavery....I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.....), includingthe right of slave states to control their own internal affairs. In that same address, Lincolnexpresses his support for the Fugitive Slave Act, and his unshakable belief in `the sanctityof the Union.' In fact, this speech was tailored precisely to the disquietude amongSoutherners about developments in the North that had been underway for some time andby which the South felt threatened, of which abolitionism was only one aspect.Yet, if we continue to read we will find that Lincoln was indeed against slavery. He wasalso against slaves. He wished to be rid of them. He was obsessed with the idea of`colonizing' American slaves back to Africa or elsewhere outside the US. ("If I had allthe power on earth, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [ofslavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, totheir own native land." ) Lincoln had been lobbying different sources for funds to buyslaves and send them along with free Blacks back to Africa, or later on to Chiriqui/Panama, Haiti/ Il

Lincoln Died for Our Sins?

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 t