Talk:Forced into Glory

message: :Image:ForcedIntoGlory.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:ForcedIntoGlory.jpg 

message: This article's tone violates WP:NPOV in one of the worst ways possible. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 02:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure the wording of the article can be improved in detail, but I think it roughly covers the situation in which rather few historians take this book very seriously, since it doesn't judge Lincoln realistically according to the context of his period.  For example, it's useless to beat up on Lincoln for not being an immediatist abolitionist, since no immediatist abolitionist could have been elected president of the US in 1860, and Lincoln was pretty much the closest thing to an immediatist abolitionist which had a realistic chance of being elected (the fact that he had been a Whig rather than a Free-Soiler in 1852 was part of why he won the Republican Party nomination).  Similarly, in the Lincoln-Douglas debates Lincoln expressed just about the minimum amount of racism that was necessary for him to be a realistic candidate for senator from Illinois in 1858 (some might say that he expressed less than the necessary minimum, since he lost that election).  And much as we might find it distasteful now, blackface minstrelsy was the prevailing form of popular entertainment of the day, so it's pointless to obsess over Lincoln attending a show and laughing at it (along with hundreds of thousands of others at the time).  Etc., etc.  To put it another way, Frederick Douglass supported Lincoln's candidacy in 1860 (he knew that Lincoln hated slavery, which none of the other significant presidential candidates in 1860 did), and who is Lerone Bennett, Jr. to say that he understands the needs of Blacks in those years, and the realistically-available possibilities for meeting such needs, better than Frederick Douglass did?  It's perfectly reasonable to resent traditional accounts according to which Blacks were merely passive recipients of emancipation bestowed from above as a beneficent favor by the great white father in Washington, and to seek to set the record straight on that point, but the book as a whole seems to contain many arguments which are not too reasonable... AnonMoos (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I know, you're right about everything you said. I just feel that the article's tone does nothing but discredit the contents of the book (which, from what I can tell, would be accurate to do, in all truthfulness),  but that's not so much for Wikipedia's place to do, ya know? More information about the book, in addition to the academic criticism (backed up by the fact that the book attempts to put forth misconstrued or wrongfully-interpreted history), would be the best bet. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 08:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ha, wow... 

message: About how Bennett's book has been embraced by neo-Confederates and even white racists here: ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting article 

message: In The Impending Crisis: 1848-1861 by David M. Potter with Don E. Fehrenbacher, he comments on a 1968 Ebony magazine article by Lerone Bennett Jr. which was a precursor to the book:
"The major objection to concluding simply that Lincoln, like Douglas, was a `white supremacist' is not that the conclusion is literally false, but that a categorization so loose that it fits Douglas as well as it fits Lincoln does not say very much"
Stephen A Douglas saw no moral issue with the enslavement of blacks (who in his view were clearly inferior), and he sometimes committed political errors because he had a very difficult time understanding how a politician of goodwill who was not a "fanatical" abolitionist could have any legitimate concern with slavery.  For Lincoln, slavery was a moral issue from start to finish... AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: David M. Potter comment