Posted on 07/21/2017 2:08:41 PM PDT by impetrio1
And back into bondage? The premise of the series is that the Confederacy still had slaves and all. And importing slaves would have been legal under the Confederate constitution.
Not shipping all blacks back to Africa. I believe you are confusing Lincoln with the inspiration for your screen name, Thomas Jefferson.
What cable dramas do nowadays is to make viewers sympathize with "bad guys," with marginalized, outlaw groups that are at best morally ambiguous, at worst downright evil: Mafiosi, drug dealers, drug cookers, drug growers, motorcycle gangs, convicts, lady convicts, escaped convicts, escorts, gigolos, whores and pimps of the Old West, carnival workers ... The list is endless.
To be sure, none of those shows goes directly against contemporary ideas of political correctness. Two White guys have to be careful, and they'd do well to take on collaborators from other groups as insurance.
But PBS's Civil War drama Mercy Street does a pretty good job of avoiding the expected pitfalls. It's not a UDC/SCV version of history by any means, but it shows good and bad in characters from all groups, North and South, Black and White.
In fact, if Benioff and Weiss are very smart, they won't avoid the connection between Democrats and slavery, secession, and segregation. They'd figure their viewers would be smart enough to recognize that the Democrats have changed of the years, and that the audience would also be clever enough to appreciate their usual view of things being turned on its head. Plus, the scriptwriters would find other ways to portray the Republicans as evil.
Then again, this may be such a public relations disaster that the show never gets made or has to wait years before going into production. It's definitely not one of the best ideas TV has come up with. When you read about a show featuring "the executives of a slave-holding conglomerate," do you really think it's something that will run for six or seven seasons?
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl264.php
Are you guys competing for the "Most Moronic Post of the Month Award?"
It must be tough, but you've got July's competition all sewed up.
Diogenes must be seething!
I’ll give you the Cliff’s Notes on that lengthy treatise:
Lincoln (as well as many others) explored the voluntary emigration of freed blacks. There was more opposition (for various reasons) than interest. The idea was abandoned.
The day ain't over...
That's more nonsense. The southern slavocracy was wholly responsible for the war, They whipped up a hysteria about Lincoln that painted him as an ape who was going to take their slaves away, something he had no power to do. They had largely seceeded before he took office, so nothing he did caused that. Then he specifically refused to initiate hostilities, and sought a negotiated settlement, his only condition at being that they stayed in the union. At that point he offered far more generous terms than he would have otherwise, specificaly to avoid a war. Hardly the actions of a warmonger. The south, in the grip of that phony hysteria, and ridiculously certian of quick victory, then initiated war anyway. Lincoln simply responded in the only way he could at that point. The death and destruction lies soley on the heads of those foolish enough to start a war they had little chance to win, not Lincoln.
The bottom line is the south's motive for secession and starting the war was fear of losing their slaves. That's understandable. They represented trillions of dollars worth of "property" in todays terms. In the north, the goal the vast majority agreed on was saving the union. Some wanted slavery abolished, others didn't, but they agreed on union. As time went on public opinion shifted and more people began to believe that all the blood and treasure spent would be wasted if the union was restored with slavery. Your attempts to say slavery wasn't the root cause of the war are simply a way for you to justify the south's actions without having to justify the indefensible institutiion of slavery and paint the side that started it all as the victim.
By the time of the civil war the British navy had already stopped the slave trade for decades. Importing them would have required a naval war with Britain. That's the main reason the USA banned imports shortly after the Brits announced the aboloshion of transatlantic trade in 1807.
D-L also failed to mention that Lincoln’s opinion of the negro race in general were in line with the Ku Klux Klan.
The only death as a result of the Confederate bombardment of Ft. Sumter was an old Army mule.
I don't know all the caveats of the creators. One storyline is that after the South wins the war due to Cleburne's proposals to arm and free Southern men bound to service, radical Republicans in the United States press for the immediate abolition of all the slaves in the North.
This places President Lincoln in a dilemma. Although he is said to oppose slavery, he has promised border states that he will not interfere with the “peculiar institution.”
He convinces just enough Republican legislators to drop plans to adopt the 13th amendment by saying, “I once walked 20 miles to pay a library fine for an overdue book and I'm not going to go back on my word now. I am not an insincere charlatan”
Lincoln is harshly criticized by some who say his campaign pledge was “meant to be broken” and that huge ghettos in the North were already under construction and had to be fully stocked to meet post-war industrial needs for low-paid hazardous-duty workers.
“Are you guys competing for the “Most Moronic Post of the Month Award? . . .Diogenes must be seething!”
Sounds like you must be seething. And I don’t know why.
Quick review.
Slavery was enshrined in the United States constitution by the votes of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland. And also Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia.
Slavery was also enshrined in the Confederate States constitution.
Both the Union and Confederates had slaves.
During the War Between the States, both the United States and Confederate States had presidents who took oaths to defend and protect their respective pro-slavery constitutions.
After the Emancipation Proclamation, one of the presidents added a slave state to his nation.
Do you know which?
Well, let's look at Mr. Lincoln's documented words:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Put a dent in it. It was never completely stopped.
And at that he was still better than any of the Confederate leadership you would care to name. So if you're down on Lincoln for that then you must really hate them.
Based on the article, their alternate history will be a lot different - and almost as imaginary - as yours would be.
“The only death as a result of the Confederate bombardment of Ft. Sumter was an old Army mule.”
Brother Joe’s earlier comment was probably made in jest. He is certainly too bright to think he could get away with his comment on this board.
I love Bother Joe’s sense of humor. He will probably adopt “the mule died” as his tag.
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.