Posted on 11/16/2012 7:27:33 AM PST by BobNative
New Movie Propagates Lincoln Historical Myths
If you are planning to see the new, Steven Spielberg directed, Lincoln movie you might want to invest in an accurate history book instead. While it is successfully dramatic, the movie rehashes several 150 year old myths about the Lincoln presidency and America’s most horrible war. First, to the movie’s credit, the script avoids a key, blatant lie that is currently being taught throughout American public schools today. The script focuses correctly on explaining how slaves were freed by the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, not the Emancipation Proclamation. Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation did not apply to any northern states. It only applied to southern territory that was not under control of the Union. Therefore, it was ignored by the Confederacy too. The original proclamation of September 22, 1862, even stated that all southern states could keep their slaves if they returned to the Union by January 1, 1863.
LINCOLN AND SLAVERY: Although properly focused, the movie misleads its audience into believing that Abraham Lincoln was consumed with the thought of freeing slaves. In reality, Lincoln was a white segregationist from Illinois, whose state Constitution had banned permanent black residents since 1848. Lincoln stated repeatedly in his 1861 inaugural address, his 1862 Horace Greely letter and other times during and before the war that his only intent was to “preserve the union” not free slaves. As a lawyer, Lincoln actually represented Robert Matson, a slave owner who wanted his part-time seasonal slaves returned to him. In 1847, Mr. Lincoln took his case all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court where he lost. Throughout his presidency, Lincoln made repeated attempts to colonize all African Americans beginning in 1862 with his Commissioner of Emigration, James Mitchell, the former leader of the American Colonization Society. In April of 1865, well after Congress passed the 13th Amendment and just before his death, Mr. Lincoln was still discussing his colonization plans with Union Army General, Benjamin Butler.
LINCOLN AND THE WAR: The movie aptly shows graphic scenes depicting some of the many horrendous battles in the appalling war against Southern independence where 620,000 Americans died, almost as many Americans killed as in all other wars combined. But the script serves to conceal Lincoln’s role in instigating the war. Lincoln refused to meet with Confederate commissioners who came to Washington to negotiate a peaceful separation in February of 1861. He did not seek a constitutionally required declaration of war from Congress before initiating the war or petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a ruling as to the legality of secession according to the rights of the states under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He ignored the vast majority opinion of his own cabinet and decided to invade Virginia on July 21, 1861 over objections of his military commanders, Generals Winfield Scott and Irwin McDowell. At that time, the Union had never suffered a single casualty from the Confederate military, which had committed no hostilities against the Union for over three months prior to the invasion. The script tends to ignore these well established, largely suppressed facts and imply that Mr. Lincoln had no choice but war.
CAUSES OF LINCOLN’S WAR: The script also tends to deceive the audience into believing that slavery was the major cause of the war. It avoids the issues of Constitutional rights that Jefferson Davis so frequently wrote about and the excessive tariffs that caused South Carolina to initially threaten to secede 30 years earlier. Given that just over 15% of southerners owned slaves, it should be obvious that 85% of southerners were not fighting for the right of the minority 15% to own slaves. Although northern soldiers fought to preserve the union as Lincoln demanded, southern concerns about Constitutional rights and excessive taxation were proven to be justified. After southerners elected state representatives, who voted democratically to secede and unanimously elected Jefferson Davis as their President, they were then forced to fight to protect their homes, families and property from continual invasions. Today, almost all of us are victims of the uncontrollable federal government and taxing excesses that were spawned by President Lincoln’s war.
LINCOLN AND THE PEOPLE: The script further misleads the audience into believing that Lincoln was a beloved populist although with 39.8% of the vote, he was the most unpopular president ever elected. In one scene, Sally Fields, who plays Mary Todd Lincoln, remarks that: “No one has ever been loved so much by the people…” She obviously was not referring to southerners since they were victimized by death and destruction from dozens of invasions. She also could not have been referring to the 30,000 or so northerners who were imprisoned without trial for opposing the invasion of the south. Among them, 30 Maryland legislators were imprisoned to keep the state from voting to secede and thus preventing the war by encircling Washington D.C. with Confederate states. Hundreds of newspaper editors, publishers and citizens were also imprisoned for publicly opposing the invasion. Imprisoned notables include Frances Key Howard, grandson of star spangled banner author, Francis Scott Key and George Armistead Appleton, grandson of Major George Armistead, who commanded Fort McHenry during the key victory in the war of 1812.
LINCOLN AND HUMANITY: The movie theme seems to purposely exaggerate Abraham Lincoln’s concern for slaves to falsely portray him as a great humanitarian. In another dramatic scene, Daniel Day Lewis, who plays Lincoln, asks: “Shall we stop this bleeding?” This line is acutely ironic since it was Lincoln who initiated the bleeding for millions of Americans. Mr. Lincoln personally directed key activities of the Union Army that repeatedly attacked civilian populations. The army burned hundreds of homes in South Carolina, destroyed dozens of farms and killed thousands of head of cattle in the Shenandoah Valley, burned dozens of cities and towns across Georgia, pillaged civilian homes in Fredricksburg, Virginia, and fired cannon shells into the towns of Vicksburg, Mississippi and Petersburg, Virginia for months. These unprecedented atrocities against American citizens are documented in “War Crimes Against Southern Civilians” by Walter Brian Cisco.
CONCLUSION: The movie leaves a burning question as to why Steven Spielberg chose to continue the historical glorification of Abraham Lincoln while covering up the horrible truths about his administration and concealing the source of the greatest atrocities ever committed against American citizens. The real facts must have been uncovered given the historical research that was performed. Did Mr. Spielberg’s lust for money and a “feel good” plot far outweigh his desire to present the full truth? We may never know the answer to such questions. In the meantime, if you are simply looking for dramatic entertainment that will make you comfortable by filling your Kool-Aid cup with propaganda, this movie might be for you. If, on the other hand, you expect any historical documentary to inform you accurately about past events, then your admission fee would be better spent on obtaining an accurate historical education of the Lincoln administration by reading a book such as Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln.
Garland Favorito
PERMISSION TO POST AND REPRINT GRANTED
Thank you. I was about to reference the same thing. Here’s the site for folks to invesigate. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
And losers get to write the legends.
Not sure of your point in that response, but I note that my question has yet to be responded to.
Your argument is that Fort Sumter was not fired upon on April 12, 1861?
Your assertions do not dispute my argument. Early in the war, a large portion of the sentiment in the North was to restore the Union. Certainly, there was abolitionist sentiment as well. As the war progressed, abolitionist sentiment grew.
Yes, Little Mac ran against Lincoln as Democrat. I think that we agree on this salient fact. But I don’t seem to recall McClellan’s treason.
We agree that slavery is the underlying cause, but there’s more to it. If the war is about slavery, then why did Virginia reject secession before Lincoln’s call for troops and then pass secession afterwards? The status of slavery did not change in the intervening period.
The secession of West Virginia from Virginia does not address my argument and is irrelevant.
Secession is legal, by federal amendment, by federal legislation, or even by successful court case.
The southern insurrection had none of those. The temporary union of the first continental congress became a perpetual union by the Articles of Confederation, and in turn was made more perfect by the current constitution.
Lincoln was a classical liberal. He was for lowering the burden of taxes on the working man. “The face that grows the corn should eat the corn.” He held, and in his life demonstrated that a man could work for himself for a certain number of years, then hire another to work with him for a certain number of years, then be wealthy enough to start a business. Lincoln handled over 5000 cases in his career. Consider John Edwards, former Democratic candidate for vice president: He handled 26 cases in his entire legal career. Lincoln once handled a case for a railroad, and billed them 20,000$. They refused to pay, and Lincoln took out a lien on the railroad. That would have allowed him to, with the aid of the local sheriff, to seize and sell off any assets of the railroad until the debt was paid.
Taxes on slaves were about 100%, from the point of view of the slave. Slavery endowed every slave owner with the power of the government. Unless the master chose to let the slave keep tips or money the slave earned after completing his daily tasks.
Slavery permitted rape, kidnapping, assault, and theft as a normal process. Further, the slave power enslaved white militia members, both before the war as ‘slave patrol’ to search for potential runaway slaves, and during the war as conscripts to the slave power, while slave owners were granted deferments.
Some soldiers from Georgia were conscripted, forced to fight for the insurrection, wounded, shipped home, where their state conscripted them again, and then shipped a second time to satisfy the insurrection’s endless demands for cannon fodder.
Except the tariffs were low when South Carolina pretended to secession.
We have nice parting gifts though.
The US did not force the southern states into the union. Rather they prevented the tiny minority of slave owners in the country from tearing apart the union.
The revolutionary war was vastly different. No taxation without representation. Because of the distance between north america and England, the colonies could not be represented in England. The colonies had their own powers of local taxation. The government of England pretended to have the power to tax the colonies, and when that pretended power was resisted, the government of England send soldiers and marines to make war on the colonies. Only after the war started did the colonies declare independence.
The southern insurrection first declared their independence, based on slavery, though there was no effort made by the US to end slavery, or tariff, though the tariff at that time was low. Then the insurrection declared war on the US, then made war on the United States. None of those were justified, and accordingly, they could not find a single country in the world to support them, and over 40 regiments of southern men fought against the insurrection.
Jeff Davis enacted conscription before Lincoln. The southern slave power began the insurrection, with no legal authority.
Rather than execute them all for piracy, the Union was merciful. That was Lincoln’s policy.
Slavery endowed every slave owner with all powers of government. You truly replaced one tyrant a thousand miles away with a thousand tyrants one mile away.
Assault under color of authority: legal under slavery. Rape: legal under slavery.
Theft: legal under slavery.
Kidnapping: legal under slavery.
Freedom of speech forbidden: legal under slavery.
Right to keep and bear arms forbidden: legal under slavery.
Imprisonment: Legal under slavery.
Forbidden to vote: Legal under slavery.
And then, to keep all the rules of the slave owners, the slave power forced people who did not own slaves to patrol for escaped or run away slaves. When the insurrection began, men who didn’t own slaves were conscripted to support the insurrection.
I had considered going to see Lincoln....I am a big fan of Daniel Day-Lewis, although I don’t know his politics. Being from the U.K., I just assume he also leans left.
But I won’t pay to see this movie because of Speilberg. He does not need my money. I will wait patiently until I can see it on t.v.
Meanwhile, I may just read a few Lincoln biographies. I have seen Lincoln specials all day on the history channel...some had not so flattering anecdotes about him! That really piques my interest!
Machine guns are not banned, but since 1934 they have been registered with a 200$ tax. Reagan had nothing to do with that.
I have a friend who owns a Vickers 1921.
Rather it was socialist Woodrow Wilson who segregated the federal government. The Republican who was elected after Wilson. Warren G. Harding is acknowledged to be partly of African heritage.
None of which sways any Black voters today; and Harding’s supposed touch of Black ancestry is disputed, with Harding himself not knowing the truth.
New ones are and Reagan signed it. Google the Hughes amendment. Free Republic had a thread about it a while back.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2664239/posts
I’m not supporting Hollywood either... we’re a good start...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.