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

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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/show...9&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/LinkC...BQ%3D&tabid=79

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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]

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.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

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]

Originally Posted by 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."

LOL....but true

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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/show...9&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/LinkC...BQ%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]

Originally Posted by August

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.