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

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

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.

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!!!

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.

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

Still waiting for both films to come out here!

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:
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.

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:

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.

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"

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.

Quote:

"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.

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.

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.

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

See above.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.