lincoln

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

directed by steven spielberg and starring daniel day-lewis, so this already has oscar nominations written all over it.

going off that trailer, and an older one it looks like it'll be deserving of the inevitable hype, although i imagine it will be somewhat less hyped over here than in the states since it's about lincoln and the emancipation of the slaves.

 

[The Master]

Rotten Tomatoes has 1 bad review on it, but it was a review from a guy who hated Toy Story 3 so he really has no credibility...

I for one would like to see this movie. I'm going to be the first to say/admit that I honestly have no idea what Lincoln did as a president other than freeing the slaves. That being said, I'm not going to be all "oh Lincoln was the best president ever!" because I have no info to back it up. Hopefully after seeing this movie I will know more about why he was/is considered one of the greatest presidents in US history.

 

[Exoskeleton]

I'm hoping the delve in all the reasons why the war broke out.

Something keeps telling me they wont really touch on the main reason and just end up making Lincoln look like a hero and what not. He was a smart president and all but I kinda of think this film may end up glorifying him a little too much. From what I've read about it seemed like he freed the slaves more for an advantage in the war instead of just wanting to. Doubt it'll be portrayed that way in the movie so I might not watch this.

 

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

apparently it focuses on the last few months of his life, and his struggle to get the freedom of the slaves pushed through. i don't know my american history, but i think that should mean the film essentially takes place during the last few months of the civil war?

 

[CassinoChips]

Considering slavery drove American politics from about 1820 through Reconstruction, saying that the primary cause for the Civil War was anything other than slavery is short-sighted.

Lincoln was an interesting cat, that's for sure. Personally I think the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Election of 1860 are more interesting than the end of his life, but that's just me. And that time probably doesn't make for as good a movie. But eh.

 

[CassinoChips]

The topic is Lincoln, right? Let's roll.

No, not really. I'm sorry you think that way. This is actually something that historians still debate over, so I doubt this discussion will end the debate.

Most historians who aren't Southern apologists don't debate that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. States' rights, etc. were mitigating factors, all revolving around the concept of slavery.

But unfair Northern economic policies was (one of) the primary causes for secession. The South had complained for decades about unfair (and unconstitutional) economic policies--especially tariff policies that the north would put on them

The South complained about everything, because they were whiners. The ironic thing is that Southern Democrats controlled Congress and the Presidency from about 1828 (Andrew Jackson) all the way up to Lincoln. But. The tariffs were an issue, yes, but only because Southern economy was tied to slave labor. The North was industrializing at a rapid rate. After the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812, European blockades of British goods forced the Brits to offer their exports to the U.S. (primarily the South) at a rate that U.S. manufacturers could not compete with. The North was not importing these goods at a high rate because they had no need to. They were making their own goods. The South, on the other hand, had virtually no industry because of its reliance on King Cotton, and thus, slavery. Therefore, no slavery, no cotton farming, probably more industrialization in the South, the tariff isn't a problem. This was the case with the Tariff of Abominations, and by extension the Tariff of 1832.

Jefferson Davis mentioned the South's complaints about Northern protectionist tariff policies in his first address to the Confederate congress. And if my memory serves me right, I think even Robert Tooombs gave the same reasons for secession. You have to understand that the states that joined the Confederacy were for independence and state rights, ultimately to keep each state sovereign on their own and not controlled by a central power--unlike the North, which favored a central power that controlled everything and was able to override state laws.

The states that joined the Confederacy were for states' rights, yes. So they could keep slavery. When Lincoln was elected, the fear that slavery would be abolished was rampant. Not only in the Western territories via popular sovereignty, but also in the South because of the moral outcry against slavery that was the hallmark of the Republican party.

And to drive home my point even more, in Lincoln's inaugural address he said that it was "his duty to maintain the Union", declaring that he had "no intention" of ending slavery where it existed (as in some of the southern states where it was still legal). So Lincoln (on a few different occasions) insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; but that it was a war to preserve the Union that was being threatened of being ripped apart because the divide on states rights VS. central power.

Preserving the Union was Lincoln's goal, yes. Until the Emancipation Proclamation. Then he adopted the cause of abolition. Preservation of the Union is why Lincoln engaged in war. But Lincoln's action was a response. If the southern states don't secede, there is no reaction from Lincoln. So secession prompted Lincoln's response. Slavery prompted secession. Slavery caused the Civil War.

I mean, during his first inaugural address Lincoln threatened to invade the seceded states if they didn’t pay the federal tariff--notice how he didn’t threaten to invade over slavery; but he said there would be an invasion if the seceded states didn’t pay the federal tariff.

That's misleading. Lincoln said he would not support the use of force against the South, except that which was necessary to collect legal duties and imposts. He never threatened invasion, unless the South actively took up arms against the Federal government.

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

I should also point out that in that same Speech, Lincoln approved a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee permanent slavery in the US, and all the south had to do was join the union again.

That's completely false. Lincoln did not oppose the Corwin Amendment, meaning he wouldn't veto it. It was essentially out of his hands anyway, as the House and Senate had already passed it. However, the Corwin Amendment did not guarantee permanent slavery. What it stated was that the Federal government could not create an Amendment abolishing slavery. But it would be left up to each individual state to decide whether they wanted to keep, expand, or repudiate slavery. Practically speaking, Southern states would keep slavery, all others would abolish it.

The confederates, of course, refused because the 40% import tax that they(the north) were planning to force onto the southern states was exactly what the south seceded for in the first place--not because of slavery. That speaks volumes on what was the root of the cause. Because if slavery was the "real" reason for the war, then surely they wouldn't have offered to keep it as long as the south rejoined the Union. And if, as so many claim, the issue for the south withdrawing from the Union was slavery, then the Southern States should have returned to the Union. But, because the issue to Southerners is self-government and unfair taxes and not slavery, they didn't take his offer. If this doesn't show what the war was really about then I don't know what does.

"One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."

Directly from Lincoln's Inaugural Address.

And on another note; James Phelen, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents(the north) were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery." They called those who were making this claim "demagogues", and when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis even insisted that "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" in the war.

"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."
~Davis

Davis, like many during his time, believed that slavery was a necessary evil. While he may have put up the smokescreen that the Civil War was about states' rights, the reality is still that those states' rights revolved around whether the Southern states would/should be able to retain the institution of slavery. In fact, one of the reasons Davis was elected President of the Confederacy was because he was "the champion of a slave society and embodied the values of the planter class, and thus was chosen Confederate President by acclamation."

Not many people know that Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were prepared to abolish slavery, some Confederate leaders even supported various forms of emancipation.

And other Confederate leaders vowed to shoot and kill any Northern black soldier on sight, instead of treating them as a POW like they would a white soldier. Unless of course that white soldier was in a regiment with a black soldier. Then they would be summarily executed as well. Also, the reason Davis and others supported various forms of emancipation was largely to refill their military ranks. To put it bluntly, they were running out of bodies. The North had the advantage of more big cities, which gave them more of a population, which gave them more of a pool from which they drew soldiers. The South began freeing slaves in the hopes that they would then fight for the South.

Even Robert E. Lee himself (and a few other Confederate generals) supported emancipating slaves who served in the Confederate army. In fact, Lee favored abolition of slavery and called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war even began.

Lee probably wasn't pro-slavery. But he also would have preferred to fight for the Union. The only reason he didn't was because he couldn't bear the thought of raising arms against his fellow Virginians. All of which is interesting, but has nothing to do with why the war was fought.

And by late 1864 Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition, therefore saving the Confederacy-- his plans were supported by Duncan Kenner(big slaveholder in the south) and Judah Benjamin (confederate secretary of state).

That's a pragmatic reason for ending slavery after the South had become desperate. Ask them the same question in 1860 and they would likely have never dreamed of abolishing slavery.

There's no doubt the issue of slavery was one of the main, immediate factors that led the original seven states of the Confederacy to secede, but it was certainly not the only factor, and that's all I'm trying to say.

Certainly, but it was the match, the spark, the wood, and the gasoline that started and expanded the fire.

So, yeah--it's not as black and white as so many believe it to be. Not like that's their fault--their history text books provided in schools intentionally misguide people with inaccuracies all the time. So it's not shocking that most people don't know any of this. :/

Most history textbooks are Southern apologetic in nature.