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

[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...

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.

[Rhodes]

Still waiting for both films to come out here!

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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.

[Oberon]

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

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"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/

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"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]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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.