Lincoln’s Cure for Slavery
Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln movie stars Daniel Day-Lewis as the 16th president and the new trailer makes the case that ending slavery was the president’s main motivation for fighting the Civil War. Lincoln is based on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book A Team of Rivals and features a screenplay by Tony Kushner, alongside performances by Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Hal Holbrook. The movie arrives in theaters in limited release on November 9th and everywhere on November 16th.
![Der Gro?mufti von Jerusalem [Amin al Husseini] bei den bosnischen Freiwilligen der Waffen-SS. Der Gro?mufti ist auf dem Truppenubungsplatz ein[getroffen] und schreitet die Front der angetretenen Freiwilligen mit erhobenem Arm ab.](http://images-undertheradar.military.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/nazicollaborators300.jpg)
Under the Radar is commentary. We don’t report the news; we offer our take on what happened.
14 Comments
My family fought and died on both sides of that war.
A. If you are from the “North” the war was against slavery.
B. If you are from the “South” the war was over states ‘rights.
HOWEVER,
I tend to hold with the reason that Robert E. Lee said when he was called to testify in front of the US Senate as to the cause of the war. He responded, and I quote, it was.. “The failure of our elected officials to do their jobs…“
This did not go over well with the US Senate. Which just FYI were appointed not elected by the people of their state. That change would come years later.
If Lincoln abided by the CONSTITUTION there woulde not have been a war of northern aggression. He was the second American Dictator with Andrew Jackson being the first FDR the third and the narcistic communisn baffoon Obama( illegal alien) the fourth.
It is ironic that a southern pro-slaver like John Wilkes Boothe,saved the black population here from deportation.
Lincoln had explored several regions including South American countries to take the blacks reciding in this country. Liberia is on example where it was tried. Had lincoln lived there is little doubt they would have been deported.
Now Mrs Lincoln had two brothers that fought for the south and she was almost tried for sedition.
Lincoln like obama tread on many civilians rights and
imprisoned people for things he considered“against the effort.
Fort Sumter was actually a port of taxation,that taxed the exports of farms in the south,such as cotton.
There was no income tax and the north’s reason for going to war was monetary.
Lincoln,pictured as a slave hating president was quoted as saying,if “I could stop the war by freeing the slaves I would.If I could stop the war by freeing 1 slave I would.If I could stop it by freeing no slaves I would.“
Inhis debates for his second presidency he said in his platform“of course I realize the back man is not the equal to the white man“hence the vote of 5/7 count for black men voters.
The emancipation proclamation was no more than a desire for cannon fodder. Lincoln was going to free the slaves,but they would have been freed elsewhere.
Look this up,it is available in older quotes and texts,though probably not in the newer politically correct ones.
As far as i’m concerend Benedict Arnold wasn’t a traitor either — he just changed sides…
Why are the majority of the Union soldiers in the film black? I mean, I could be wrong but I believe there were white enlisted union soldiers as well. Just a thought.
Anyone with at least SOME knowledge of Lincolns motivations know that slavery was last on the list. Lincolns goal was to preserve the Union, at any cost. Lincoln himself to Seward in early 1862 “If I could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves I would do it; if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”.
The fact is that Lincoln needed two things at this point to help preserve the Union, he needed Europe to stay out of the War (One war at a time — Lincoln) and he needed to pacify the Border States who were split on the subject of slavery. But most importantly he needed a victory. The Union had been having their butts handed to them in nearly every Battle up to this point. He got his “Victory”, which was actually a draw at Sharpsburg, MD (Battle of Antietam). At that point he was about to issue his proclamation, and when he did, there was no longer any danger of Europe entering the War on the side of the South (They had been threatening a Blockade of Northern Ports). Europe could not assist a Southern Slave holding Government after having denounced slavery themselves. Therefore, they were out and all they could logically do is sit on the sidelines and give some backdoor material support to the Confederacy.
Finally, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all of the slaves. It only freed those slaves who lived in those states in Rebellion (The Confederacy). Plenty of slaves were being held in Union States who were not freed. AND it did not block the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Escaped Slaves when captured were still returned to their owners in the South and Northern Citizens could be held for having stolen property for hiding them.
No, I will not go see this Spielberg version of his revisionist History.
That’s readers, is BASIC American History.
History, is being changed by the fourth power in America.
While the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are subject to the checks and balances of the US Constitution, the MEDIA and filmakers, have virtually no oversight or accountability (other than to make money for their shareholders, and financiers). The media’s power and reach has catapulted out of control in the information age; in many cases cowering elected officials and in THIS case, changing the reading of important historical facts. Subtle changes, owing to a political agenda (far left) and in the name of political correctness… have us SO far off course in this country that I wonder if we will ever find our way back? The pendulum is supposed to swing both ways… why then, does it seem to be STUCK on the left? Great points in your comments by the way, Jeff.
Lincoln was a man of his times. As President he said that if freeing the slaves would keep the union together, he would do it and if keeping them enslaved would save the union he would do that also. The Emancipation Proclamation was more for weakening the Confederacy more than anything else since it only freed those slaves of states that were in rebellion with the Union and those slave states that were loyal were unaffected.
The reasons behind the choices and decisions made by both sides were complex and based both on economics, as well as moral issues. The Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party while the Democratic Party was the party of the slaveholders. Of course there were exceptions to the general rule. Slavery had become so imbedded in Southern economics and cultures that Southerners jumped through hoops to justify it. In the beginning, the war was fought to preserve the union but in time the North recognized the moral evils of the “peculiar instituion” and that became the driving force. After the war, the freed blacks became Republican politicians and advocacy for civil rights became a Republican cause-celebre. After reconstruction the Democrats gained power by marginalizing the blacks, and passing Jim Crow laws. Lincoln and Lee were both shaped by cultural norms of the times and both had to tread carefully through the minefield of public opinion. Everything is pure speculation. Unfortunately Hollywood has to be “politically” correct and their version may not genuinely reflect reality.
The victors make the history in the history books, but the National Archives has documents of truth which the victors continue to ignore into modern times. The only thing that I want to bring to the discussion is that the end of the war only freed the slaves in the South below the Mason Dixie Line. The North still had slaves of both blacks, indians and whites. There were some freed blacks with indian and white slaves in the North. It was not until 1866 that the slaves in the North were freed. Research it yourself at the National Archives. It was not until the Emancipation Proclaimation in 1863 that the war became over slavery below the Mason Dixie Line only to disrupt the South’s economy and logistics. Had the North lost the battle of Gettysburg the North was prepared to sue for peace.
The Civil War was won by both sides, the south won on the grounds of saving states rights and the north by saving our nation. And that is what it was fought over, the slavery issue came almost mid war as a tool to keep the British from siding with the south.
Lincoln was not a Abolitionist. He said that if he could have kept the Union whole without freeing the slaves, he would have.
Slavery was dying as the Civil War began. The economic viability was fast disappearing. Slaves cost too much to buy, house and feed. As was found after the War, share cropping was much more profitable.
Strangely enough, many Blacks owned slaves, with some of them being nearly the richest in their respective states. See the link: http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
gary:
Not only did freed slaves own slaves, so did Indians and French Canadians. As you said, slavery was dying out and if there was no war they would of been much better off. It seems like both sides took it on on the blacks before, during and especially after the war.
Hollywood is constantly trying to re-write history to suit progressives who want to turn this country into a socialist utopia through State control.
The fact is, while it’s true that Lincoln believed slavery to be deeply immoral, it couldn’t be farther from the truth that he prosecuted the American Civil War to free the slaves. Lincoln believed in an all-powerful central government — in fact, an all-powerful Executive, so powerful that he suspended habeas corpus by fiat and dared the other branches to do anything about it. And rather than fight a war to free slaves, Lincoln freed slaves (by executive order, and only in the rebellious states) as a tactic to win a war.
If you doubt that, fact check this letter he wrote to Horace Greeley, the publisher of the New York Tribune, in 1862: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery,” Lincoln wrote. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
By today’s standards, Lincoln was extraordinarily racist. The fact that he was on the right side of the slavery issue as that issue ripened does not change that. The last thing Lincoln wanted to see was a racially integrated, color-blind society. In fact, he wanted freed slaves to be repatriated to Africa (Liberia, to be exact). But today’s liberals love to paint the statist Lincoln as a saint and the libertarian Jefferson as a devil, because Jefferson inherited slaves from his father and failed to free them before the slavery issue ripened. Liberals find the statist Lincoln convenient and the libertarian Jefferson to be inconvenient. This notwithstanding the fact that the ideals of liberty and equality were expressed most powerfully by Jefferson, not Lincoln.
I am a Civil War history junkie so of course I will see this movie. But there seems very little question that Spielberg will have re-written the history about Lincoln about as radically as Oliver Stone re-wrote the history of the JFK assassination. Neither will be taken seriously by historians, but the purpose of misleading uneducated Americans about their history will be served in the interest of increased statism.