Thought Question

I was watching a documentary about the Civil War earlier tonight and the narrative raised a question that I'm now struggling with.

The specific situation discussed in the film - as they presented it, remembering that our perception of history is open to interpretation - was Lincoln's early reluctance to address the issue of slavery, and his initial proposals to free slaves but only in a form of exile by creating a colony in Africa or South America. Lincoln of course eventually decided that there was no other possible course of action than emancipation, which ennobled and energized the Union's fight, gave a symbolic and moral framing for the war itself, led to the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th Amendment and, with the conclusion of the war, finally the freeing of all the slaves.

But, one of the historians discussing Lincoln's approach to the issue of slavery challenged the notion of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator, as the almost sacred figure that he's become. She said (paraphrasing) that she doesn't believe the "excuse" that a man - even a Great Man - is bound by the context of his time, and that we should not consider those social / cultural constraints as factors in our judgment of a historical figure. She called Lincoln to task for those years of trying to avoid the issue of slavery, for trying to work within the politics of a divided nation, and for his addressing the topic only when it was seemingly necessary to win the war. In other words, while many historians and our "pop" history see Lincoln as a hero for working within the context of the time to bring about a great moral victory, this historian instead faults him for not rising above the politics and prejudices of the time to attack slavery from the very beginning.

This is a simplified view, and it reflects only my own surface-level knowledge of the history of the time -- but it still struck a bit of a nerve with me and I'm not sure how I feel about it. Putting the specifics of this Lincoln scenario aside (although I am enough of a believer in Abe that it does trouble me to hear reasonable doubts about him), this raises a really interesting question in general - not only for the great leaders of any given time, but for how we live our own lives, day in and day out.

This may come out muddled, but here's what I'm now struggling to think about....

Does the context of a given time - including the prevailing social and political beliefs - dictate or "excuse" one's behavior if one chooses to follow the established path rather than fight for a dissenting belief? Or does that context create the challenge that a person needs to rise above -- with the moral obligation to create change a higher command? Or, put another way, is it equally right to try to create change from within a flawed system, knowing that it may be incremental change rather than a complete victory, as it is to try "swimming upstream" to buck the current system and bring about radical change, even if a more extremist position means less ability to effect the change itself?

Hmmmmm. I think I've usually held the view that trying to effect change from within is a good and noble thing, as you're still striving for that ultimate goal of positive change. But, could it be said that working from within a problem situation is still *supporting* that problem, and immoral as well?