What 'Lincoln' misses and another Civil War film gets right

[Onkel Neal]

What 'Lincoln' misses and another Civil War film gets right (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/08/showbiz/slavery-pbs/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

He used the N-word and told racist jokes. He once said African-Americans were inferior to whites. He proposed ending slavery by shipping willing slaves back to Africa.
Meet Abraham Lincoln, "The Great Emancipator" who "freed" the slaves.
That's not the version of Lincoln we get from Steven Spielberg's movie "Lincoln." But there's another film that fills in the historical gaps left by Spielberg and challenges conventional wisdom about Lincoln and the Civil War.

If we are honest with ourselves, this was during a completely different era with different standards. It's silly to apply our standards to people of these times. (Of course he used the n-word, who didn't in 1860?) I'm in a Lincoln/Civil War/slavery reading mode currently. My last activities include the film Lincoln, read the book Battle Cry for Freedom, and am 1/2 way through Sandberg's Abraham Lincoln (the combined version). Also saw Django Unchained (wow, you did not want to be a slave in 1858). It's interesting for me to try and imagine the thought processes of the slaveowners and slaves, without the varnish of our modern society.

I won't make any declarative statements about Lincoln, the South, abolitionists, or slaves--any opinions or knowledge I can share has been acquired from reading, and I imagine this applies to you as well.

[Herr-Berbunch]

You can go for 'historical accuracy', or you can go for 'fitting in with the current zeitgeist of political correctness'. Never the twain shall meet. :-?

Django Unchained isn't out for a week or so here, but it was already on my must see list!!!

[Armistead]

I've yet to see Lincoln, hopefully soon, I figured the movie was more politically correct than right. I've been into the Civil War era since I was 19, once big into reenacting, our group was part of the movie Gettysburg. Course many of my ancestors down south fought in the war, owned slaves etc. I still curse Sherman for totally wiping out my ancestors plantation in SC, who knows, I might've been rich...:O:

Most movies miss the truth, many in the north were as racist, the war then, like now, was about power in government, not slavery. Lincoln would've gladly let slavery continue if the south would've returned to the union, but certainly there was a strong religious/political movement in the north to end slavery. I have no doubt Lincoln was against slavery, but he would've rather let it die out than go to war, it was nothing more than a political card. Being a smart politician, he had to wait and play his hand to deal with slavery at the right time.

In many parts of the south, past southern heritage still plays a large role. I am fine with that when it relates to history. I know many hate our southern flags, but we must remember slavery existed under the US flag long before. The values of slaves exceeded the wealth of industry in the north, not like people would simply give up all their wealth. I would dare say the Irish up north had it as bad as slaves down south.

Our family has a strange history. After my GGGfather lost most his wealth, he still did well. His slaves became sharecroppers and stayed connected to our family and worked on farms and in businesses until the 1970's. We had black mammies raise us that were decendants of family owned slaves. I know my mammy could've won oscar for a mammy, she played a large role in my early life, she was much loved.

[Betonov]

This documentary I found a while ago tells us the other side of Lincoln. the man and politician.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plwIiSvyW2A

[Rhodes]

Still waiting for both films to come out here!

[Sailor Steve]

Interesting article, and I'm looking forward to the new documentary.

One thing that intrigued me was a quote from the article citing historian R. Blakeslee Gilpin:
Gilpin says Lincoln was great not only for what he got right, but because he could admit what he got wrong.

There is no doubt that Lincoln was flawed, perhaps severely so. Can anyone show a leading figure of the time who wasn't? Or from any other time, for that matter?

I'm a big fan of Frederick Douglass, and have often called him Lincoln's "black conscience". Lincoln was far from perfect, and had varying agendas depending on the time frame you look at. If not for the abolitionists there might have been no emancipation, but it was Lincoln who signed the paper, whatever reasons opponents want to claim for him.

Lincoln may or may not have been an abolitionist from the start, but the secession began when Lincoln was elected President, and it began because Lincoln was a Republican, and the Republicans of that time were considered the Abolition Party.

[Takeda Shingen]

I would dare say the Irish up north had it as bad as slaves down south.

You couldn't buy an Irishman, or his family. Also, I don't recall photographs of Irish with backs scarred the way we have seen in numerous historical photos. Revisionism indeed. :shifty:

[Oberon]

I think the Irish up north had it better than the Irish in Ireland at the time...

[Takeda Shingen]

I think the Irish up north had it better than the Irish in Ireland at the time...

Don't get me wrong; the Irish had it bad. However, they were not property. They were not sold at the auction block. They could vote. Their marriages were legally recognized. Etc, etc. And while they were certainly at the bottom of the job pool, and openly discriminated against, they were not slaves, and had those basic rights.

[Armistead]

You couldn't buy an Irishman, or his family. Also, I don't recall photographs of Irish with backs scarred the way we have seen in numerous historical photos. Revisionism indeed. :shifty:

You didn't have to buy them, they were the outcast of society up north, south as well to a point. I dare say more Irish died working the slum plants than slaves did. Sure, they had freedom, but the point was racism abounded all over the US. The Irish experience was much like the slave.

"As one southern planter explained to his northern visitor, the planter had hired an Irish gang to drain a swamp because "‘It’s dangerous work and a negroe’s life is too valuable to be risked.’"15"

[Takeda Shingen]

You didn't have to buy them, they were the outcast of society up north, south as well to a point. I dare say more Irish died working the slum plants than slaves did. Sure, they had freedom, but the point was racism abounded all over the US. The Irish experience was much like the slave.

Your argument is that more Irish died working the plants, mines and sweatshops than black slaves did in the course of their enslavement? I'll take that one. What are we wagering? We can have a third party get the stats, so that neither of us can claim bias.

"As one southern planter explained to his northern visitor, the planter had hired an Irish gang to drain a swamp because "‘It’s dangerous work and a negroe’s life is too valuable to be risked.’"15"

Key word: hired. And no, I don't give the plantation owner moral superiority for not wanting to risk what to him were his beasts of burden. Sorry Armistead, the moral equivalency argument just isn't going to fly.

[Armistead]

Wasn't trying to argue moral equivalency, but comparing the experience.

The bigger point was the "political correctness" we see in movies, leaving out the overall truth. Political correctness makes the war about slavery, it wasn't. It portrays the Union as slave hating people wanting freedom for blacks, simply not true. Most in the north were as racist as those in the south. If you study the history of many Union Generls, most were ardent racist, owned slaves, etc. Lincoln made many racist statements, said blacks weren't equal of whites, should never vote, intermarry, etc. You don't see this in modern movies. Even before the war, Robert Lee spoke of slavery being evil in any country and that it should be done away with. Lee freed his slaves, Grant and Sherman kept slaves on staff during the war.

As Neal pointed out, had Lincoln not been killed, he probably would've tried to boat all blacks back to Africa...

Oh, I would bet that more Irish died from economic conditions than slaves.

[Takeda Shingen]

Wasn't trying to argue moral equivalency, but comparing the experience.
The bigger point was the "political correctness" we see in movies, leaving out the overall truth. Political correctness makes the war about slavery, it wasn't. It portrays the Union as slave hating people wanting freedom for blacks, simply not true. Most in the north were as racist as those in the south. If you study the history of many Union Generls, most were ardent racist, owned slaves, etc. Lincoln made many racist statements, said blacks weren't equal of whites, should never vote, intermarry, etc. You don't see this in modern movies. Even before the war, Robert Lee spoke of slavery being evil in any country and that it should be done away with.

And there are still racists today, in every state of the union, just as there were then. However, the simple fact was that a black man was a man in the north, and generally considered property in the south. There simply is no equal in comparing them to any group that willingly immigrated to this country, could refuse work, and to whom you had to pay a wage.

Also, Lee's words and views didn't give him cause to free his slaves, did they?

Oh, I would bet that more Irish died from economic conditions than slaves.

Your point is correct because slaves, as property, didn't get to participate in the economy. :know:

[Armistead]

And there are still racists today, in every state of the union, just as there were then. However, the simple fact was that a black man was a man in the north, and generally considered property in the south. There simply is no equal in comparing them to any group that willingly immigrated to this country, could refuse work, and to whom you had to pay a wage.

Also, Lee's words and views didn't give him cause to free his slaves, did they?



Your point is correct because slaves, as property, didn't get to participate in the economy. :know:

You forget slavery existed for 85 years in this nation before the war, protected by law. It supplied the bulk of govt. tax dollars. Lincoln even stated that if he let the south go as law applied, the govt would go broke.

Slavery existed up north as well as south before, during and after the war.
In fact, most don't realize the Emancipation only freed slaves in the south, not the north, Delaware rejected the 13th amendment until 1901. Many continued to own slaves in the north after the Emancipation...legally.

Study up, Lee rejected slavery, Lincoln, Grant and Sherman didn't. Lee inherited his slaves, but freed them in 62. Grant didn't free his slaves until 1865. You don't see this in movies.

The bigger point again is the wrong portrayal in modern movies. The north really had no moral high ground.

[Takeda Shingen]

You forget slavery existed for 85 years in this nation before the war, protected by law. It supplied the bulk of govt. tax dollars. Lincoln even stated that if he let the south go as law applied, the govt would go broke.

Every state north of the Mason-Dixon line was 'free' by 1804. Virtually all slaves were freed by 1840 in said states.

Slavery existed up north as well as south before, during and after the war.
In fact, most don't realize the Emancipation only freed slaves in the south, not the north, Delaware rejected the 13th amendment until 1901. Many continued to own slaves in the north after the Emancipation...legally.

See above.

Study up, Lee rejected slavery, Lincoln, Grant and Sherman didn't. Lee inherited his slaves, but freed them in 62. Grant didn't free his slaves until 1865. You don't see this in movies.

Not sure what to say about this. Lee's slaves were 'freed' in 1862 only because his wife liquidated most of their property and left Arlington House for good. Maybe you should study up. However, I suspect that you knew this and it was intended as more of a half-truth argument; the type that I have very little time or patience for.

Also, Grant's slave owning is repugnant, just as Lee's is repugnant.

The bigger point again is the wrong portrayal in modern movies. The north really had no moral high ground.

I grow weary of the same old argument from southern apologists. Regardless of how it is argued, it just become a fingers-in-the-ears type discussion. It's just silly that you guys still have a chip on your shoulder about the whole thing.

[Armistead]

You obviously never read the historical fine print, slavery existed all over the north after 1804 legally. Notice your statement, that virtually all slaves were free by 1840 in already free states. Many northern states had slaves until 1865. Obvious it can't be compared to slaves in the south, but again the issue is the hypocrisy portrayed in modern movies and history. Few know that slavery was still legal in the north after the Emancipation.

Lee as the man took charge of his wifes property in 56 and started freeing slaves that were inherited as requested by his wifes father to be freed within 5 years of his death, had very little to do with his wife. He certainly didn't do it right away due to finances. Certainly in this time and culture Lee was far beyond most regarding slavery, certainly more than Grant, Sherman and Lincoln, never shown in modern movies.

I have no chip on my shoulder, so get over it. You're trying to turn this into some moral debate. I deplore any racism or bias. The point is the wrong portrayal today of history in modern movies and history, like it or not, it's just a fact. The south was wrong, but creating heroes out of Lincoln, Grant and most of the political north is just as wrong.

[Bilge_Rat]

Hey guys, remember the Civil War has been over for 150 years. I am pretty sure "The South will rise again!" is just a bumper sticker. :ping:

I had read a lot on the war. Yes, the N-word was pretty much prevalent back then and about as inoffensive as the term African-American is now.

Yes, the prevailing attitude in both North and South was that African-Americans were inferior to whites.

Yes, Lincoln had no particular desire to end slavery when he came in to office and until 1862, would have been quite willing to keep slavery to maintain the Union.

However, you can also see his thinking evolved and by the summer of 1863, he was convinced that the war had to stand for more than just state rights. He was convinced that ending slavery once and for all was necessary to both justify the cost in human lives and to allow the US to go forward. All his cabinet were opposed to the Emancipation Proclamation, all thought it was political suicide. Even Lincoln thought he would probably lose the 1864 election if he went ahead. At the time, it was a very bold, even radical political decision.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yes, the prevailing attitude in both North and South was that African-Americans were inferior to whites.

Yes, Lincoln had no particular desire to end slavery when he came in to office and until 1862, would have been quite willing to keep slavery to maintain the Union.

However, you can also see his thinking evolved and by the summer of 1863, he was convinced that the war had to stand for more than just state rights. He was convinced that ending slavery once and for all was necessary to both justify the cost in human lives and to allow the US to go forward. All his cabinet were opposed to the Emancipation Proclamation, all thought it was political suicide. Even Lincoln thought he would probably lose the 1864 election if he went ahead. At the time, it was a very bold, even radical political decision.

Oh, absolutely. Lincoln's views on slavery may have been that emancipation was the way to go, but the move to actually emancipate was purely political and calculated for effect. The man was a master politician.

[Bilge_Rat]

Oh, absolutely. Lincoln's views on slavery may have been that emancipation was the way to go, but the move to actually emancipate was purely political and calculated for effect. The man was a master politician.

If he was only interested in getting re-elected, he would not have pushed through the EP. No one in the North wanted to die just to free slaves.

He was a very smart politician in that he knew he could only issue the EP after a victory so it would not look like a desparate move. He had the EP in his pocket for months, but only went ahead after Antietam.

[Takeda Shingen]

If he was only interested in getting re-elected, he would not have pushed through the EP. No one in the North wanted to die just to free slaves.

He was a very smart politician in that he knew he could only issue the EP after a victory so it would not look like a desparate move. He had the EP in his pocket for months, but only went ahead after Antietam.

But the foreign powers did. Lincoln knew that emancipation would keep England from intervening and pushing for a truce, which he could absolutely not have. That would have guaranteed that he would not be reelected. Foreign powers wouldn't dare interfere with a war with the declared end of abolition, and so he waited until he had the victories make it a credible gesture that would strengthen his political position, both abroad and domestically.

[Bilge_Rat]

Ah yes, England, forgot about them.

Yes, he did do a good job keeping Europeans from getting involved.

[Armistead]

People forget how the war started. The govt got taxes by imports.The south paid about 90% of the nations total tariffs in 1860. The new Republican party wanted a strong national government over state rights, because it promoted northern industrialization. The Republican party simply wanted to overtax the south for their own benefit, as if the south didn't already contribute almost all the taxes. This was Lincoln's platform and it led to much conflict. It wasn't about slavery, it was about taking all the money out of the south for their own greed. With most new states being free, it assured the continual rape of the south paying all the taxes for northern capitalist. so the south seceded

[Takeda Shingen]

Ah yes, England, forgot about them.

Yes, he did do a good job keeping Europeans from getting involved.

Lincoln was a student of history. He understood that the American Revolution was ultimate successful due to foreign recognition. He also understood that the only real way the south could win that war was through the same. It was the big, looming concern for the early part of that war.

[Armistead]

Lincoln was a student of history. He understood that the American Revolution was ultimate successful due to foreign recognition. He also understood that the only real way the south could win that war was through the same. It was the big, looming concern for the early part of that war.

That damn blockade, if not for that we would still be whistling "Dixie".

[Bilge_Rat]

I think we have to be careful to overestimate the importance of foreign intervention in the decision process leading to the EP. Certainly, removing the risk of foreign intervention was a bonus, but the EP was still a radical move.

I think the more important factor was the fact that Lincoln realised that winning the war, but keeping slavery would not solve anything in the long term. Slavery had become one of the most overriding factor in federal politics in the past 50 years. Southern and Northern politicians were always trying to make sure that "Free" and "Slave" states were at parity. You also see that the issue was becoming more and more corrosive, a lot worse than what you see now in US politics. I think Lincoln realised that preserving the Union, but keeping slavery, like had been done in the 1787 Constitution, would just paper over the problem and garantee another war in another 50 years.

[August]

Many northern states had slaves until 1865. Obvious it can't be compared to slaves in the south

Really? Which ones?

[Armistead]

Really? Which ones?


Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, New Jersey, W. Va, Washington DC

[August]

Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, New Jersey, W. Va, Washington DC


Washington DC, not a state, not even in the north.
Maryland, border state, had to be kept in the Union by gunpoint. If it wasn't located north of Washington it it would have seceded along with the rest of the rebel states. It did however abolish slavery before the end of the war.
West Virginia - Another border state which wasn't even a state at all until it seceded from Virginia for seceding from the Union, and also, not in the north.
Kentucky Yet another border state and again not in the north. Officially neutral at the beginning of the war.
Delaware another border state which had freed over 90% of it's slaves by the start of the war.
New Jersey, the only real northern state in your list, did indeed keep slavery legal through the war but only barely it was down to just 16 slaves by war's end.

Also Delaware, Kentucky and New Jersey were all conducting a gradual emancipation of the slaves along the same lines as New York. They might have been slave holding (in NJ and De's case barely) but were all on the way toward emancipation.

So ignoring the fact that 16 slaves out of over 25K (as of 1860) barely qualifies as "slave holding" how can you call one solitary state "many"?

[Sailor Steve]

Political correctness makes the war about slavery, it wasn't.
"Political Correctness"? Were the Southern States being politically correct when they seceeded?

You're right, the war wasn't about slavery. It was about Secession vs preserving the Union. Secession, on the other hand, was all about slavery.

[Armistead]

"Political Correctness"? Were the Southern States being politically correct when they seceeded?

You're right, the war wasn't about slavery. It was about Secession vs preserving the Union. Secession, on the other hand, was all about slavery.

Secession was about lack of representation and taxation, with the south paying the majority of taxes. Lincoln could've resolved this, but was a pansey of the northern capitalist who didn't want to pay taxes. Lincoln could've perserved the union and ended slavery in a fair way like most nations of the world did without almost destroying our nation. Lincoln is a hero because it worked out in the end, but it could've went the other way and almost did. There were several meetings to resolve these fiscal conflicts, but Lincoln wouldn't budge. The north overall didn't want slavery to end, it supplied the tariffs to the government, the north simply wanted to control the souths wealth for their benefit through control of congress.

Slavery was dying in the south, only about 8% of families owned slaves. Had Lincoln not been so hard headed many southern states would've remained in the union and the few that left would've folded in a few years.

The fact is both sides were racist, slavery wasn't the issue, it only became an issue. Course it did resolve and create much of the tax code we have today, when the south left, we saw the creation of income tax in the north and the federal govt continued to go nuts with taxes, tariffs during and after the war and grew into the monster it is today.

Like Grant said..."if the war was about slavery, I would've changed sides"

The fact will remain modern history is built on many myths because the union won. There was little about this era where anyone can claim moral high ground, just shrewd politicians and rich greedy people/

[Armistead]

Washington DC, not a state, not even in the north.
Maryland, border state, had to be kept in the Union by gunpoint. If it wasn't located north of Washington it it would have seceded along with the rest of the rebel states. It did however abolish slavery before the end of the war.
West Virginia - Another border state which wasn't even a state at all until it seceded from Virginia for seceding from the Union, and also, not in the north.
Kentucky Yet another border state and again not in the north. Officially neutral at the beginning of the war.
Delaware another border state which had freed over 90% of it's slaves by the start of the war.
New Jersey, the only real northern state in your list, did indeed keep slavery legal through the war but only barely it was down to just 16 slaves by war's end.

Also Delaware, Kentucky and New Jersey were all conducting a gradual emancipation of the slaves along the same lines as New York. They might have been slave holding (in NJ and De's case barely) but were all on the way toward emancipation.

So ignoring the fact that 16 slaves out of over 25K (as of 1860) barely qualifies as "slave holding" how can you call one solitary state "many"?

I was simply pointing out that slavery did indeed exist in the north up until 1865. We can fuss about border states, but they remained in the union and were part of the union, to imply they weren't really union or northen is silly. Kentucky was neutral, but couldn't remain so and went union.
Lincoln's emancipation did not free slaves in northern states, just southern states, in fact Kentuchy had almost 50,000 slaves near the wars end.

[Sailor Steve]

Secession was about lack of representation and taxation, with the south paying the majority of taxes.
Can you show that at all?

I guess you missed the last big Civil War thread, though you were a member at the time. I'll save myself a lot of trouble by pasting what I wrote last time.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1358229&postcount=47

To repeat the bottom line of what I said then: Every State that published their reasons put slavery at the very top of the list. How many of them mention the taxation you spoke of?

Like Grant said..."if the war was about slavery, I would've changed sides"
When exactly did Grant say that? here is a link to actual quotes from the man, including his memoirs, in which he did indeed attribute the war to slavery.
http://www.freedomsgateway.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Fl3td8E_WBQ%3D&tabid=79

[Bilge_Rat]

Secession was about lack of representation and taxation, with the south paying the majority of taxes. Lincoln could've resolved this, but was a pansey of the northern capitalist who didn't want to pay taxes. Lincoln could've perserved the union and ended slavery in a fair way like most nations of the world did without almost destroying our nation. Lincoln is a hero because it worked out in the end, but it could've went the other way and almost did. There were several meetings to resolve these fiscal conflicts, but Lincoln wouldn't budge. The north overall didn't want slavery to end, it supplied the tariffs to the government, the north simply wanted to control the souths wealth for their benefit through control of congress.



Are you suggesting the Civil war was fought and 1,000,000+ persons died over Tariffs?

Congress had passed a low Tariff law in 1857 which especialy favored the South. Republicans may have run on a high tariff platform in 1860, but that was politics as usual. The law could not be passed as long as Southern Senators were there to block it. The Morrill Tariff of 1861 could not have been passed if the Confederate states had not withdrawn from the Union.

[Onkel Neal]

Wasn't trying to argue moral equivalency, but comparing the experience.

The bigger point was the "political correctness" we see in movies, leaving out the overall truth. Political correctness makes the war about slavery, it wasn't. It portrays the Union as slave hating people wanting freedom for blacks, simply not true. Most in the north were as racist as those in the south. If you study the history of many Union Generls, most were ardent racist, owned slaves, etc. Lincoln made many racist statements, said blacks weren't equal of whites, should never vote, intermarry, etc. You don't see this in modern movies. Even before the war, Robert Lee spoke of slavery being evil in any country and that it should be done away with. Lee freed his slaves, Grant and Sherman kept slaves on staff during the war.

As Neal pointed out, had Lincoln not been killed, he probably would've tried to boat all blacks back to Africa...

Oh, I would bet that more Irish died from economic conditions than slaves.

Slave owners: they may have kept their slaves alive and healthy physically, but they were destroying their souls and hearts.

One thing I have always wondered, why is/was the proposal to return the slaves to their native lands considered racist or wrong? One could hardly argue it was beneficial to them that they were taken from their land. And they never had a chance to build their own society in the Americas.

From everything I've read, and from what I know, racism was universal until the middle 20th century. White people in Lincoln's time may have abhorred slavery, and pitied the slaves, but very few accepted the slave as their equal. The common saying in the North during the Civil War was "The Constitution as it is; the Union as it was; the Negroes where they are." (Democratic Party slogan as well, if I am not mistaken). The North wanted slavery abolished but certainly did not want the slave population to move north.

As for creating heroes out of Lincoln, Grant, etc. If you are happy the US survived the civil war and slavery issue intact (as I am), then Lincoln certainly is a hero. In the book I am reading now, Lincoln was extraordinary for his calm and foresight. More than a few of the Presidents before and after Lincoln, I don't think they would have handled the split and war nearly as well. Lincoln was a hero and pretty much the savior of the country.

"Political Correctness"? Were the Southern States being politically correct when they seceeded?

You're right, the war wasn't about slavery. It was about Secession vs preserving the Union. Secession, on the other hand, was all about slavery.

So... you're saying the war was about slavery :)

[Sailor Steve]

One thing I have always wondered, why is/was the proposal to return the slaves to their native lands considered racist or wrong? One could hardly argue it was beneficial to them that they were taken from their land.
That's a good point. I think the answer ultimately lies in the slaves themselves. A first-generation slave like Kunta Kinte would certainly have welcomed the opportunity to be reunited with friends and family in his home village.

And they never had a chance to build their own society in the Americas.
On the other hand many slaves were fourth-generation or more, and knew nothing of Africa at all, except for oral and musical folk traditions. They dreamed of being free, but being free where they were, not in some long-forgotten jungle hut. Equally I doubt that the free black men who fought for the North envisioned themselves winning the war so they could be "repatriated" to some place the knew nothing about, and likely envisioned as primitive by their own standards.

The previous generation believed in repatriation as well, at least if Jefferson is to be believed. He too felt that sending the slaves back to Africa was the only way. I think it's a good thing for America that ultimately both he and Lincoln were proved to be wrong in that.

So... you're saying the war was about slavery :)
Ultimately, effectively, and for all practical purposes - yes.

[Hottentot]

A first-generation slave like Kunta Kinte would certainly have welcomed the opportunity to be reunited with friends and family in his home village.

On the other hand many slaves were fourth-generation or more, and knew nothing of Africa at all, except for oral and musical folk traditions.

That, plus seeing how the slaves were taken from many different locations in Africa by huge numbers, returning them all to where they came from would have been a pretty huge operation logistically, especially back then. Furthermore, it might have been tricky, in some cases impossible, to determine exactly where each slave came from. Just asking them would not have done it.

[Sailor Steve]

Good point! I can see it now:

"We want to take you home. Where are you from?"

"Mberte village."

"Where is that?"

"By the Mberte River."

"Where is that?"

"It flows from the Gerhale Mountains."

"And where are they?"

"Where the Gerhale people live."

"Dear Mr Secretary; I think I see some problems with this plan."

[eddie]

Slave owners: they may have kept their slaves alive and healthy physically, but they were destroying their souls and hearts.

One thing I have always wondered, why is/was the proposal to return the slaves to their native lands considered racist or wrong? One could hardly argue it was beneficial to them that they were taken from their land. And they never had a chance to build their own society in the Americas.

From everything I've read, and from what I know, racism was universal until the middle 20th century. White people in Lincoln's time may have abhorred slavery, and pitied the slaves, but very few accepted the slave as their equal. The common saying in the North during the Civil War was "The Constitution as it is; the Union as it was; the Negroes where they are." (Democratic Party slogan as well, if I am not mistaken). The North wanted slavery abolished but certainly did not want the slave population to move north.

As for creating heroes out of Lincoln, Grant, etc. If you are happy the US survived the civil war and slavery issue intact (as I am), then Lincoln certainly is a hero. In the book I am reading now, Lincoln was extraordinary for his calm and foresight. More than a few of the Presidents before and after Lincoln, I don't think they would have handled the split and war nearly as well. Lincoln was a hero and pretty much the savior of the country.



So... you're saying the war was about slavery :)

A very interesting article here, on how Lee viewed reconstruction and his views on what he thought should be done with the newly freed slaves. He believed Virginia would be better off if the former slaves would relocate somewhere else!

I've always enjoyed reading about Lee's military record, but this is the first time I've read about his views concerning slaves. The article has several references to letters he wrote explaining his thoughts on the subject.

http://radgeek.com/gt/2006/05/28/over_my/

[August]

That, plus seeing how the slaves were taken from many different locations in Africa by huge numbers, returning them all to where they came from would have been a pretty huge operation logistically, especially back then. Furthermore, it might have been tricky, in some cases impossible, to determine exactly where each slave came from. Just asking them would not have done it.

I don't believe that was the proposal. What Lincoln envisioned I think was creating a new country in Africa that would be peopled by former slaves.

[Jimbuna]

Good point! I can see it now:

"We want to take you home. Where are you from?"

"Mberte village."

"Where is that?"

"By the Mberte River."

"Where is that?"

"It flows from the Gerhale Mountains."

"And where are they?"

"Where the Gerhale people live."

"Dear Mr Secretary; I think I see some problems with this plan."

LOL....but true :)

[Tribesman]

I've always enjoyed reading about Lee's military record, but this is the first time I've read about his views concerning slaves. The article has several references to letters he wrote explaining his thoughts on the subject.

Don't forget that Lee had an uncle that was involved in the ACS and the settlement of Liberia, which was also something Lincoln was involved in 20 years before the south had a thing about "taxes"

[AVGWarhawk]

I find the Grimke sisters more interesting concerning this subject.

[Penguin]

The ACS is a good point to Neal's question why the resettlement idea is seen in a negative light today.

What makes the ACS pretty interesting is that is was not a heterogene club. On the one hand there where those folks who didn't want freedmen living in their land for mostly racist reasons, one the other hand those with good intentions. Well, we know what's paved with it.

In hindsight we know that Liberia didn't work out too well. One reason is tribalism, as those people who settled there were not native to this area, the other is that the guys from America formed an elite themselves and were not to keen sharing their power.

[Armistead]

Can you show that at all?

I guess you missed the last big Civil War thread, though you were a member at the time. I'll save myself a lot of trouble by pasting what I wrote last time.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1358229&postcount=47

To repeat the bottom line of what I said then: Every State that published their reasons put slavery at the very top of the list. How many of them mention the taxation you spoke of?


When exactly did Grant say that? here is a link to actual quotes from the man, including his memoirs, in which he did indeed attribute the war to slavery.
http://www.freedomsgateway.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Fl3td8E_WBQ%3D&tabid=79

I don't have time to respond in detail or read your threads, but will later.
I have found arguing the CW is much like arguing religion or what bible verses mean. If we're not able to put ourselves into the culture and mindset of the time, we'll never understand it. Today historians and people debate, calling the other side false and claim facts as myths. Most important we must know slavery was economic wealth and we can understand the southern mind set better if we replace the word slavery with "economic wealth"

Few are aware that there was a large movment to gradually end slavery in the south before the war, just like up north, but along came the radical
abollitionists. Buchanan stated, "Before [the abolitionists] commenced this agitation, a very large and growing party existed in several of the slave states in favor of the gradual abolition of slavery; and now not a voice is heard there in support of such a measure."

Many southern politicains made strong statements regarding tariffs, you'll find more facts simply searching "tariffs of the 1800's." Compare the number, you'll see the south paid the majority of tariffs and this money was used mostly to support northern industry, fishing, RR's, etc...

The big issue for the South was the loss of equal representation, they were already far behind in the electoral vote, with new states being free, they felt they would soon face economic ruin. Lincoln won, even though he wasn't even on the ballot in most southern states.

When Lincoln won, his call for troops to invade the south nailed the coffin shut. Most felt only congress could do such. The remaining southern states refused to send troops called upon, calling this action illegal, then one by one they left the union and the rest is history.

Slavery wasn't a southern institution, it was a US one that existed since our conception, there was a wrong and right way to deal with it.

[Platapus]

I don't believe that was the proposal. What Lincoln envisioned I think was creating a new country in Africa that would be peopled by former slaves.

I think we tried that with Liberia in the 1820's. Of course that experiment did not work out quite as well as some wished. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

I don't believe that was the proposal. What Lincoln envisioned I think was creating a new country in Africa that would be peopled by former slaves.
My fault for forgetting. Since 1820 there was already Liberia. :sunny:

[Sailor Steve]

If we're not able to put ourselves into the culture and mindset of the time, we'll never understand it. Today historians and people debate, calling the other side false and claim facts as myths. Most important we must know slavery was economic wealth and we can understand the southern mind set better if we replace the word slavery with "economic wealth"
Which is why I directly quoted what they said, not someone's interpretation of it.

Many southern politicains made strong statements regarding tariffs, you'll find more facts simply searching "tariffs of the 1800's." Compare the number, you'll see the south paid the majority of tariffs and this money was used mostly to support northern industry, fishing, RR's, etc...
That's nice, but they said it was because of slavery. What that may or may not have entailed, it does not excuse Southern Apologists for saying it had nothing to do with slavery, or that slavery was a secondary issue.

As John Adams said during the Boston Massacre trial, "Facts are stubborn things." What one side or the other thinks or says, what they said is the bottom line, and you can read exactly what they said.

The big issue for the South was the loss of equal representation, they were already far behind in the electoral vote, with new states being free, they felt they would soon face economic ruin. Lincoln won, even though he wasn't even on the ballot in most southern states.
I don't know whether he was really excluded from Southern ballots or not, but if he wasn't, why not? The only logical explanation would be that the Southern legislatures had already decided that would be the case, which means that they were against Lincoln from the start. Why?

Four years earlier, in 1856, Republican candidate John C. Fremont recieved no votes at all in the South. Why? Because the Republican Party was created to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska act, which would repeal the Popular Sovereignty issue of the Missouri Compromise. Yes, the Southern States felt they were being cheated. They wanted a new Slave State to be created for every new Free State. They hated the fact that pretty much all the potential new States wanted nothing to do with slavery. Oh, there's that word again. So they solidly opposed any Republican as being an Abolitionist. They opposed Fremont in 1856, because of his party's attitude toward slavery. They opposed Lincoln in 1860 because of his party's attitued toward slavery. For them it was all about slavery. Yes, slavery was an economic issue, which made it also about economics, but it was also the major economic issue, if not the sole one.

When Lincoln won, his call for troops to invade the south nailed the coffin shut. Most felt only congress could do such. The remaining southern states refused to send troops called upon, calling this action illegal, then one by one they left the union and the rest is history.
What? Lincoln didn't call for any troops when he won. He had no authority at all. He didn't call for troops to put down the rebellion (of course Southerners called it "invading the South") until they opened fire on Fort Sumter. But the Southern States started seceding long before Lincoln took office; in fact shortly after his election. They refused to be in the same country with him, long before his call for troops and long before the beginning of what they called "Lincoln's War". They seceded as soon as he was elected. Why? Because he was a Republican, and the Republican Party was the Abolition Party. It was, as they said when they did it, because of Slavery.

Slavery wasn't a southern institution, it was a US one that existed since our conception, there was a wrong and right way to deal with it.
Yes it was, and when the Framers of the Constitution tried to limit it, the Southern States said that any limiting of Slavery would lead to them refusing to sign. They wanted to have slaves be counted toward their representation in Congress, even though they refused to count said slaves as anything other than property. They forced the Northern States to bow to their will, since everyone was sure that, as Ben Franklin had said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "If we don't all hang together we will most assuredly all hang separately." The Southern States forced the rest to bow to their will on that point, and we ended up with the highly controversial '3/5 Rule'. All the struggle from that point on was directly concerned with slavery.

Yes there was a wrong way and a right way to deal with it. Secession just because a guy you didn't like got elected was definitely the wrong way.

[August]

My fault for forgetting. Since 1820 there was already Liberia. :sunny:

Ok so not so new. :)

[Hottentot]

I don't believe that was the proposal. What Lincoln envisioned I think was creating a new country in Africa that would be peopled by former slaves.

That's like taking a piece of land, throwing a bunch of Finns, Romanians and Spaniards there and saying "be people now!"

Oh wait, that has been tried already. It's called the EU.

[Onkel Neal]

That's a good point. I think the answer ultimately lies in the slaves themselves. A first-generation slave like Kunta Kinte would certainly have welcomed the opportunity to be reunited with friends and family in his home village.


On the other hand many slaves were fourth-generation or more, and knew nothing of Africa at all, except for oral and musical folk traditions. They dreamed of being free, but being free where they were, not in some long-forgotten jungle hut. Equally I doubt that the free black men who fought for the North envisioned themselves winning the war so they could be "repatriated" to some place the knew nothing about, and likely envisioned as primitive by their own standards.



Yeah, good point. :hmm2:

[Penguin]

That's like taking a piece of land, throwing a bunch of Finns, Romanians and Spaniards there and saying "be people now!"

Oh wait, that has been tried already. It's called the EU.

No, it's the exact opposite. The former slaves had rights after the country was founded, we had them before.

No get off my lawn you dirty Finn or I'll call Europol! :stare:
I am sick of you people who ride on rendeers on our Autobahn, and do nothing for Europe besides producing undestroyable Nokia phones, ridiculously hot women and weird music. And your saunas contribute to global warming!

[Armistead]

Which is why I directly quoted what they said, not someone's interpretation of it.


That's nice, but they said it was because of slavery. What that may or may not have entailed, it does not excuse Southern Apologists for saying it had nothing to do with slavery, or that slavery was a secondary issue.

Yes there was a wrong way and a right way to deal with it. Secession just because a guy you didn't like got elected was definitely the wrong way.


You're thinking slavery, the south was thinking economic wealth and your ignoring the host of other serious issues that connected to how the south operated. Yes, the two are connected, but it was more than slavery in itself. In fact, a small percentage owned slaves.

The bigger issue, it really wasn't about slaves to Lincoln or most the north, they wanted it like it was, just wanted the north to have an unfair balance of power.

Many states didn't secede until after Lincoln called up troops, even asking the south for many troops, in doing so the entire south left, none of them would accept an army coming into their state. Check your fact, it was after this that the entire south left.

Lincoln got elected because a warped electoral system, like I said, he wasn't even on the ballot in most southern states.

Don't get me wrong, I deplore slavery, I'm glad it worked out like it did, the question is, another path existed before the war, numerous states were ready to do away with slavery the same as the north was doing, but radicals ended that option.

The scary thing is, what if it didn't work out, it could've gone the other way and totally ruined America, then we would be calling Lincoln a zero, not a hero. The sad fact is racism continued in full force long after the CW.

[Sailor Steve]

You're thinking slavery, the south was thinking economic wealth and your ignoring the host of other serious issues that connected to how the south operated. Yes, the two are connected, but it was more than slavery in itself. In fact, a small percentage owned slaves.
Of course slavery was tied to economics, and of course the Southern States were trying to stay alive, and of course they viewed the Northern States as trying to destroy their way of live. But the economics were tied to slavery, and that was the central issue.

My response is mostly to this statement: Political correctness makes the war about slavery, it wasn't.
That is a flat statement, and it is flat wrong. As I said the first time, the war was over secession and preserving the Union, and the Southern States seceded over slavery. That is what they said at the time, and I don't think they had a reason to lie about it.

The bigger issue, it really wasn't about slaves to Lincoln or most the north, they wanted it like it was, just wanted the north to have an unfair balance of power.
Not so. I'm sure there were power-hungry politicians in the North, just as I'm sure there were power-hungry politicians in the South. Lincoln, I'm equally sure, was concerned with preserving the Union for the simple reason that he was of the second generation following the Founders, and he firmly believed that whole "Hang together or hang separately" thing. I think he was sure that the country separated could not survive.

If, as you say, they just wanted to have an unfair balance of power, then you cannot attribute strictly bad motives to them and then assign strictly pure motives to the South. It's not fair to assume only the worst of one and only the best of the other.

Many states didn't secede until after Lincoln called up troops, even asking the south for many troops, in doing so the entire south left, none of them would accept an army coming into their state. Check your fact, it was after this that the entire south left.
I already know my fact(s). Seven States seceeded over Lincoln's election. Four (hardly "many" in the total) more seceeded after the call for troops. I don't assign any other motive than reaction to the call-up to the four. Of the seven, five listed the cause for secession, and every one of them put slavery as the primary reason.

Lincoln got elected because a warped electoral system, like I said, he wasn't even on the ballot in most southern states.
So you're saying that Lincoln one because the election was rigged against him? Or did he win despite not beeing on the ballot in those states, which means the election must have been rigged in the northern states?

Lincoln got elected because the majority of the country voted for him. He handily won the popular and electoral votes. I used to think that he won because the Democrats were divided among several different candidates. This is true of the popular vote, but even if they were all combined Lincoln still would have carried the electoral vote. There is no evidence the election was rigged in Lincoln's favor. In fact you seem to be saying that in the South at least it was rigged against him.

And, as I said, what was the reason he wasn't on those ballots? I already gave my answer. I'm waiting for yours.

I'm also still waiting on my request for evidence to support your prior claim:
Secession was about lack of representation and taxation, with the south paying the majority of taxes

The scary thing is, what if it didn't work out, it could've gone the other way and totally ruined America, then we would be calling Lincoln a zero, not a hero.
Not necessarily. Lincoln may have been remembered as the man who tried to save America and failed, while Jefferson Davis might have been remembered as the man who destroyed it.

Or the South may have succeeded, and two separate countries might have survived side-by-side. I don't dismiss any possibilities.

The sad fact is racism continued in full force long after the CW.
No one can argue against that.

[Hottentot]

No get off my lawn you dirty Finn or I'll call Europol! :stare:

Duh, you know the Europol is too busy investigating the speeding offences on your Autobahns to care. :O:

I am sick of you people who ride on rendeers on our Autobahn

It's the Sami who ride the reindeers, you silly ethnocentric escargot eater.


and do nothing for Europe besides producing undestroyable Nokia phones

Get on with the program, Nokia is Japanese. I read it in the Internuts, so it must be true and our media trying to tell us otherwise is a lie!

ridiculously hot women

Beg to differ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johanna_Tukiainen).


and weird music.

I'll have you know, our polkas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMuTdt0XI44) have long traditions and the nonsense words are not a bug but a feature. Stop oppressing my culture or I'll tell a mod!


And your saunas contribute to global warming!

Yeah, but they also contribute on decreasing the world population by natural selection.

[nikimcbee]

Beg to differ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johanna_Tukiainen).

aka "The Ferret Krusher.":o:haha:

[Cybermat47]

aka "The Ferret Krusher.":o:haha:



IT BURNS!

[TarJak]

[QUOTE=nikimcbee;1991096]aka "The Ferret Krusher.":o:haha:
:har: JT's ferret krushing is the #1 cause of most of the global warming in Finland.

[Dan D]

What 'Lincoln' misses and another Civil War film gets right (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/08/showbiz/slavery-pbs/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)



If we are honest with ourselves, this was during a completely different era with different standards. It's silly to apply our standards to people of these times. (Of course he used the n-word, who didn't in 1860?) I'm in a Lincoln/Civil War/slavery reading mode currently. My last activities include the film Lincoln, read the book Battle Cry for Freedom, and am 1/2 way through Sandberg's Abraham Lincoln (the combined version). Also saw Django Unchained (wow, you did not want to be a slave in 1858). It's interesting for me to try and imagine the thought processes of the slaveowners and slaves, without the varnish of our modern society.

I won't make any declarative statements about Lincoln, the South, abolitionists, or slaves--any opinions or knowledge I can share has been acquired from reading, and I imagine this applies to you as well.
1789 US Constitution
1857 Scott vs. Sandford
1861-1865 US Civil war
1865 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Abolition of slavery)

Scott vs. Sandford:
In 1857 the slave Dred Scott was brought by his owner from the slave state Missouri to the free state Louisiana. Scott sued for his freedom and that of his family because of the move to a free state. US Supreme Court ruled back then that Scott has no legal standing because he is a being of an inferior order and that the mindset of the founding fathers was that:
“[T]hey were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
And a simple abolition of slavery would be unconstitutional anyway because it would expropriate owners of their property (slaves).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=60&page=393

If the Supreme Court would have made clear already in 1857 that equality before the law is a defining statement under the rule of law and that slavery is unjust, could that have prevented the Civil war which caused 500,000 deaths from going to happen?

I don’t think so. It probably would have even speeded-up the process of secession of the southern states. But the decision they made certainly did not help.

Supreme Courts don’t tend to be visionary and to be ahead of their times. So much for usurpers in black who legislate from the bench.

Lincoln is not to be blamed for having used the n-word back then.