Abraham Lincoln is revered in America as an abolitionist and the President that freed the enslaved.

To leave it at that, however, is deceiving. More context is needed. When put into full view, Lincoln isn’t the man we’ve been made to believe he was in this regard.

Abraham Lincoln was what was called a colonial abolitionist. He believed that the enslaved should be emancipated, but there’s more to it than that. We need to interrogate what emancipation within the belief of a colonial abolitionist means.

Lincoln wanted all Black folk, enslaved and free, out of America. The best way to do that, according to colonial abolitionists, was to set up a colony somewhere to send them to, either in the Caribbean or in Africa.

In a September 18, 1858 speech during a Senatorial debate with Stephen A. Douglass, Lincoln claimed:

“I will say… that I am not, nor ever have I been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

It is true that Lincoln called the institution of slavery a “monstrous injustice”, however he promised states that sanctioned slavery that he would not interfere with slavery where it existed. Those states did not believe him, and saw his election as a direct threat to their way of life, which was the ownership and exploitation of human beings and all the barbarism that accompanied it.

Multiple pleas were made to Confederate states, by Lincoln, urging them to return to the Union, with promises that slavery could continue in their states if they rejoined.

Contrary to popular narrative, the emancipation proclamation was not so much declared because it sought to end slavery as it was a war measure, to deplete the Confederacy of its labor force, and gain ‘freed’ Black men as Union soldiers. In fact, the emancipation proclamation did not free all of the enslaved people in America – only in states in active rebellion. Slavery was permitted to continue in states that remained loyal to the Union.

It is said that Lincoln was coming around to the idea of Black equality, however this is largely part of the retelling of Lincoln, to defend his legacy against the truth of history being exposed.

Following Lincoln’s assassination, Democratic Vice President Andrew Johnson became President and presided over southern reconstruction. So-called Radical Republicans in Congress thought Johnson’s plan for reconstruction was too lenient, setting the stage for a contentious Presidency that would include in an impeachment and a conviction vote that fell short by only 1 vote. Was the reconstruction plan that radical Republicans thought too lenient Johnson’s plan? Or was he merely carrying forward Lincoln’s reconstruction plan?

Lincoln was alive for the beginnings of the push for the 13th Amendment, but was assassinated before its ratification. In the 13th Amendment, there exists a loophole for the abolition of slavery, in the event of a crime – which launched the foundation for slavery through the criminal justice system. It is in this period that black codes, vagrancy laws, peonage, and convict leasing were established.

By the end of southern reconstruction, former Confederates were back in power in the south and readmitted into the Union, they retook seats in the central government, moving against Black freedom by installing Jim Crow laws that rolled back many of the civil rights gained by victory in the war. It would be nearly 100 years until the Civil Rights act was passed.

Inconvenient truths have been conveniently erased over time to add to the majesty of Lincoln’s legacy and inspire patriotism. Additionally, former leaders of the Confederacy attempted to rewrite history immediately following the war by denying their cause was about the possession of human beings as property, but rather state’s rights, despite their own documented proclamations before they lost the war, in an attempt to gain sympathy and legitimacy.

Winning the war made Lincoln a hero. Lincoln’s assassination made him a martyr. He never had the chance to show us what his plans were for unification. Andrew Johnson, however, may have shown us.

For those claiming that folks are politicizing history and attempting to rewrite, the opposite is true. History has already been rewritten. Some folks are trying to reclaim the truth, and in so doing, history is being altered back to a more original form. However inconvenient it may be to our national or personal identities, it is a necessary endeavor.