History bit: Abraham Lincoln's pragmatism & compromise

History doesn't repeat exactly because it can't, but one can see innate human traits causing recurring similar events arising from similar circumstances and reasons. 

A recent Throughline broadcast on NPR, The Contradictions of Abraham Lincoln, discussed how Lincoln dealt with the low priority native American Indian issue while trying to save the Union from dissolution over the critically high priority slavery issue. This is discussed at ~24:00-27:50 of the broadcast.

The comments that Cheyenne Indian chief Lean Bear made to Lincoln (26:36-27:10), and how he died (27:05-27:17) sound a lot like the hopeless situation in the intractable Palestine-Israel conflict. We all know how it ended for the American Indians. At ~30:05-31:25 the broadcast noted that Lincoln said he wanted peace with the Indians but a father (Lincoln himself) could not always control what his children (White settlers) wanted to do. What the children wanted to do, and did, was settle on Indian land and push the Indians out. Lincoln sacrificed American Indians to save the Union.

If history is going to rhyme here, it looks a lot like about the same ending for the Palestinians is imminent. 

 

Throughline describes the broadcast like this: 

In 1855, Abraham Lincoln wrote a letter to his best friend, Joshua Speed. Speed was from a wealthy, slave-owning Kentucky family; Lincoln believed slavery was wrong. You are mistaken about this, Lincoln wrote to Speed. But, differ we must."

One way for Lincoln to have dealt with his best friend, I suppose, would be to say you're a horrible person, you're morally wrong, and I shun you," says NPR's Steve Inskeep. "Lincoln did not take that approach, which I think might be a little controversial today."

You might know Steve primarily for hosting NPR's Morning Edition. He also writes histories, and his newest book, "Differ We Must: How Lincoln Succeeded in a Divided America," takes a long hard look at Lincoln the politician: the man who went out of his way to build political consensus, even with people whose views he considered noxious. It's a case for why we should collaborate, and yes, compromise with people across the aisle – not because it's nice or the right thing to do, but because it makes our government work.