Lost on 'Cold Mountain': The anti-'Gods and Generals'. (Busting the Dixie myth.)

2003 was a big year for Civil War movies. Gods and Generals, based on Jeff Shaara's novel of the same name hit theaters in the spring. Gods and Generals was a paean to the Old Confederacy, reflecting the "Lost Cause" interpretation of the war. This school of Civil War historiography received its name from an 1867 book by Edward A. Pollard, who wrote that defeat on the battlefield left the south with nothing but "the war of ideas."

I know from the Lost Cause school of the Civil War. I grew up in a Lost Cause household. I took it for gospel truth that the Civil War was a noble enterprise undertaken in defense of southern rights, not slavery, that accordingly the Confederates were the legitimate heirs of the American Revolutionaries and the spirit of '76, and that resistance to the Lincoln government was no different than the Revolutionary generation's resistance to the depredations of George III. The Lost Cause school was neatly summarized in an 1893 speech by a former Confederate officer, Col. Richard Henry Lee: "As a Confederate soldier and as a Virginian, I deny the charge [that the Confederates were rebels] and denounce it as a calumny. We were not rebels, we did not fight to perpetuate human slavery, but for our rights and privileges under a government established over us by our fathers and in defense of our homes."

Cold Mountain, based on Charles Frazier's historical novel, was released on Christmas Day. It too is about the Civil War but Cold Mountain is a far cry from Gods and Generals. This is the "other war," one in which war has lost its nobility and those on the Confederate home front are in as much danger from other southerners as they are from Yankee marauders. Indeed, Cold Mountain can be viewed as the anti-Gods and Generals.

According to your quotation, the African Civilization Society requested an interview with Lincoln. What was he to do? Turn them down?

The African Civilization Society was founded primarily to promote Black emigration to Africa, though it also looked forward to bringing education, Christianity, and entrepreneurialism to Africans. It's worth noting that it was a Black-founded and -run group. One ought to ponder just how rare it had been prior to Lincoln for any President to have dealings with African Americans other than servants. It certainly hadn't been common to receive delegations of Black notables.

Though most African-American Abolitionists and activists attacked the African Colonization Society for its emigration schemes, it was a family quarrel. Leaders of the group, like Henry Highland Garnet and Martin Delany were passionate abolitionists who had decided that emigration was a viable option for freedmen, whether because of hopes about Africa or despair about America, or belief that colonization would hasten the day of emancipation in America. They were forerunners of later Black Nationalists. They wanted Blacks to have the option of Africa. Some thought it desirable, and others thought it necessary, but they weren't going to force their people to leave.

Martin Delany (one of the first commissioned Black line officers in the US Army) and Richard H. Cain (who became a Reconstruction Congressman) went into politics in the liberated South after the war, so they certainly weren't in favor of compulsory expulsion or resettlement of freedmen. As time went on, interest in emigration as a live option declined, though the ACS leaders wanted the option kept open. Lincoln knew of Delany's activities in support of emigration, but Delany's account of his own 1865 meeting with Lincoln makes no mention of colonization that I can see, an indication that Lincoln may well have left his interest in colonization behind.

There's some relevance to 20th century history: When American or British leaders met with prominent Zionists were they indicating their desire that all Jews leave for Palestine or Israel? That's not very likely, though such was the fear of some assimilated Jews. Rather, the emphasis might more likely have been on keeping or creating the freedom that other peoples have of living in some native homeland or in the more "diverse" society of America. I don't argue that such a policy is necessarily a good one, simply that there is a logic behind it that too often gets ignored.

Finally, it's often been said that American Blacks are fortunate to have been brought here against their will, because abduction and slavery allowed them to participate in American prosperity. There is something to be said for that view. But it's worth noting that the logic behind such a notion is one that would easily countenance deporting Blacks back to Africa "for their own good" and that of the Africans. My point is that colonization and resettlement ideas are more deeply planted in the American mind than many will admit. The country was largely built on "population transfers" between Europeans, Africans and American Indians. Singling out Lincoln, who let his resettlement plans wither, as the great American villain is foolish and nearsighted.

"Every people should be the originators of their own designs, the projectors of their own schemes, and creators of the events that lead to their destiny – the consummation of their desires." -- Martin R. Delaney

"Do not fail to have an interview with this most extraordinary and intelligent black man." -- Lincoln to Stanton on Martin Delany

The letters speak for themselves.

Yes, that was my point. Lincoln clearly states his goals, to weaken the enemy while strengthening his own military. What you claim the letters and speeches say is something completely different than what Lincoln himself says. Take the proclamation, for example. In the Conkling letter he clearly points out that it's purpose was to force allegiance from the seceded Slave States (you omitted that part) without them having to free their slaves and that if they didn't obey he then had the power to destroy their property (by freeing it) as a war measure (you omitted a good part of that). He says these things to point out to Conkling that it was NOT his goal to go out and free any slaves, it was his goal to "save" the union. He even makes it clear to Conkling that he is not asking him to fight for the negroe (you omitted that part), and that IF he asks him to later, AFTER the union is "saved", THEN would be the time for Conkling to say he won't fight for such a thing. Read the whole letter. Lincoln is your worst critic, Walt.

"Mr. President, that was a sacred effort."

--Douglass to Lincoln 3/4/65

After I make an sincere attempt to discuss the issue on a higher level, that is your only response. Very well. If that shows Mr Douglass's opinion of Lincoln then these do equally as well, and are presented to show how your revisionist fantasy imparts an "incomplete" (at best) view of Mr. Douglass's opinion of Lincoln:

"It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man's president, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men." -- Frederick Douglass

Another, shorter one is this, which I find most truthful:

"Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery." - Frederick Douglass

Yes, Lincoln hated slavery, but as Frederick Douglass points out, that does not mean he loved the black man. As Mr. Douglass also said,

"He came into the presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other president to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration." - Frederick Douglass

Douglass's opinion of Lincoln is a much more complex issue than your deliberately deceitful pasting would convey. Your representation of that opinion is patently false.

You are a small. Why do you leave out the later quotes? Why do you ignore what Douglas said of Lincoln and of his second inaugural address? Why do you do this? Where is your sense of right and wrong?

LOL. Why do you leave out and ignore all the other quotes instead of seeing the whole picture? Where is YOUR sense of right and wrong? Are you so lost in revisonist fantasy that you fear objective truth? Look here (#505) for another piece of the puzzle. Follow the link I gave you for some more of what Douglass said about Lincoln, and then ask yourself the same questions you asked me, except make them about the other quotes, the ones that don't fit Wlat's revisionist fantasy. I only seek to represent objectivity in the matter, not play spin doctor like Wlat. As I told him, Douglass said both good and bad things about Lincoln, not just good things as Wlat's revisionist fantasy would have us believe. There is a reason the revisionists ignore, omit, and deny the truth. Truth exposes their fantasy for what it is, a lie. The truth is never small, it is all there really is. All else is delusion, and that's where you'll find Wlat.

Of course Douglass's attitude towards Lincoln was complicated. Of course he said bad as well as good things. Of course a long-time abolitionist would at times be critical of someone who long opposed immediate emancipation. But it would be wrong to say that Douglass's impression of Lincoln wasn't far more positive than negative.

Read as a whole, Douglass's address is quite a tribute. The fact that you can pick out critical portions doesn't change that. Douglass was in some ways ungracious, but the more honest for it. It's hard for an unbiased observer not to see it in the end as a great positive tribute to Lincoln, all the more moving for its consideration of the man's strengths and weaknesses.

As regards the Conkling letter, Lincoln was trying to make his case to someone who was lukewarm about emancipation and raising black troops. It's natural that he would have addressed his arguments to Conkling personally, making use of what he knew or assumed to be Conkling's beliefs. If Conkling didn't like the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln points out to him that (as is so often said here) it didn't free all the slaves. If Conkling doesn't like Blacks in the army, Lincoln points out that they are doing their share of the fighting to bring the war to an end faster than would otherwise be the case.

In the same way, a modern President or Governor seeking to win over someone from the other party, has to adapt his arguments to that person's principles and sense of how the world works to carry the day. The arguments that President Bush makes to win over Tony Blair, are just that -- not candid confessions of his heart or a dogmatic rendition of his political creed. If this seems dishonest, it shouldn't. It's what we do in everyday life as well.

It seems to be some kind of rule here that if one can show that an historical figure wasn't wholly enthusiastic about someone or something -- if they had doubts, misgivings, or second thoughts -- that they were opposed to it. But that's not the case. A glass 3/4 full isn't empty by any means. Douglass might have lost his patience with Lincoln many times, but didn't lose his respect and esteem for what Lincoln had done for his people. In a similar way some Republicans today get exasperated with President Bush, but that doesn't mean they'll be voting for Dean -- let alone Saddam -- this Fall.

Rebelists talk at great length about the "Lincoln myth," but they seem to have more at stake in a mythic Lincoln than anyone else. A Lincoln who doesn't measure up to the yardstick of divine myth is easy to attack. By human standards, he doesn't come off badly. Therefore, much effort is put into proving that the man wasn't perfect or pure -- as if anyone could be.

"How it could be at once eradicated" meant abolished -- and Clay knew, as Lincoln knew, that, as a practical matter, abolition would lead to civil war.

Cast into life where slavery was already widely spread and deeply seated, he did not perceive, as I think no wise man has perceived, how it could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself.

"at once eradicated" most definitely means non-gradual abolition. However, that is not the question. The question was what Lincoln believed to be a greater evil than the institution of slavery, a greater threat to the cause of human liberty.

Lincoln clearly says something, compared to slavery, is a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself.

What was that something, in Lincoln's mind, that was a greater evil than the institution of slavery?

The correct answer is not civil war. Lincoln was reaffirming the long-held beliefs of Henry Clay in a eulogy in 1852 and restated it again in 1854.

Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He wanted to contain slavery in the South.

Lincoln was a racial separatist. He wanted to export the entire Black population.

I'll just say that I think your obsession is potentially unhealthy. Lincoln died almost 140 years ago. Get over it.

Lincoln was clearly a racist and separatist. It is not possible to read the words that came out of Lincoln's mouth and arrive at any other conclusion. That is why Black historians do not write glowing biographies of Lincoln.

I think your obsession with ignoring the half-century of racist quotes issues by Lincoln in order to cling to some perverted myth, would lead most thoughtful persons to think you were incapable of rational, independent thought.

The evidence is inescapable.

Lincoln said he was in favor of the new territories "being in such a condition that white men may find a home."
Lincoln, Alton, Illinois, 10/15/1862

"His democracy was a White mans democracy. It did not contain Negroes." Oscar Sherwin

Lincoln's dream did not contain Indians or even Mexicans who he referred to as "mongrels."
Lincoln, CW 3:234-5

"Resolved, That the elective franchise should be kept pure from contamination by the admission of colored votes."
That got Lincoln's vote, January 5, 1836.

"in our greedy chase to make profit of the Negro, let us beware, lest we 'cancel and tear to pieces' even the white man's charter of freedom"
Lincoln, CW 2:276
Translation for the intellectually challenged:
The White Man's Charter of Freedom = The Declaration of Independence

Lincoln wanted the territories to be "the happy home of teeming millions of free, white prosperous people, and no slave among them"
Lincoln, 1854, CW 2:249

The territories "should be kept open for the homes of free white people"
Lincoln, 1856, CW 2:363

"We want them [the territories] for the homes of free white people."
Lincoln, CW 3:311

If slavery was allowed to spread to the territories, he said "Negro equality will be abundant, as every White laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave n-----s"
Lincoln, CW 3:78 [Lincoln uses the N-word without elision]

"Is it not rather our duty to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?"
Lincoln, CW 3:79

Can you really deny that Lincoln was prophetic in his concern that failing to separate the white and black races would lead to "perpetual race conflict?"

Yes, I can deny that Lincoln was prophetic.

Perpetuation of ignorance and stupidity is no justification for public policy. There will never be any justification to discriminate against anyone on account of what color they are.

Many Americans may look at the problems in Northern Ireland and just scratch their head. Some may be bumfuzzled about how they even tell each other apart.

And other folks around the world look at us and scratch their heads, wondering what our problem is.

The problem is not the presence of the Black race, or any other race. The problem is the presence of ignorance and prejudice. The solution is not deporting the Black race, but curing the case of recto-cranial inversion.

LOL. I see nolu has already addressed your silly and vacuous denials regarding this issue. You're like a small child with his fingers pressed firmly into his ears, shaking his head and chanting "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!", LOL. "ButlerButlerButlerButlerButlerButlerButler..." - lol...

You can cackle like a fifth grader all you like.

You can't quote Lincoln. You can only say "Butler sad Lincoln said,", or "Lerone Bennett said Lincoln said."

That won't fool anybody worth fooling.

President Lincoln drew away from colonization and began to work towards full rights for blacks. In declaring publicly for the franchise to be given to black soldiers, he was doing what he often did - you can see it in the Conkling letter. He was appealing to the better nature of people. Of course soldiers who fought for the country should have the vote. It's no-brainer. President Lincoln took things one step at a time. But the step he proposed on 4/11/65 --voting rights for black soldiers -- was too much for John Wilkes Booth.

You can see it in the EP too. People weren't ready even for so much. But President Lincoln judged ther timing perfectly.

He was as Douglass said, considering the whole position, "swift, zealous, radical and determined."

Walt

Can you really deny that Lincoln was prophetic in his concern that failing to separate the white and black races would lead to "perpetual race conflict?"
Yes, I can deny that Lincoln was prophetic.

Since Lincoln himself said he didn't control events, but had been controlled by them, that wouldn't be too hard for you to maintain.

But: The Conkling letter was written in June, 1863.

Byron De La Beckwith shot Medgar Evers in the back in June, 1963.

I'd say that President Lincoln -could- lay claim that blacks and whites, surely so far as he could see, couldn't live together peaceably in this country.

Walt

Agreed. However, ignorance and prejudice do not disappear because you think that is what they are.

The Serbs and Croats, for instance, speak the same language, although they use different scripts for writing it. Nobody else in the world can really tell them apart, and I would assume they sometimes have trouble themselves. But that hasn't stopped them from engaging in enthusiastic tribal warfare for centuries.

When I said Lincoln was prophetic, it was with regard to his concern that the continued presence of the black race in America would lead to extended conflict. Are you trying to say that he was wrong about that? If so, you will have to deny much of the history of the last 1.5 centuries.

Perpetuation of ignorance and stupidity is no justification for public policy. There will never be any justification to discriminate against anyone on account of what color they are.

Absolutely. However, public policy based on the assumption that ignorance and stupidity will disappear because they should is even dumber.

Look at the history of black and white relations in America over the last 40 years. From what I can see, every decrease in white racism has been matched by an equal and opposite increase in black racism.

Just some would have us believe that every slave was the victim of a Legree, that slavery was bad, when in actuality, some of the slaves said otherwise:

If that is indeed your position, they I agree.

The big problem was that there was absolutely nothing to prevent any slave from winding up without warning in the possession of a Legree.

Mrs. Stowe gets a lot of bashing for being anti-southern for her invention of Legree. Unlike most of the bashers, I've actually read Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Given the constraints of the time and the medium, it is actually a quite even-handed portrayal of the institution of slavery. Of Tom's three owners, two are fine people who treat him well.

But due to the inevitable impact of death and inheritance, Tom winds up in Legree's possession, which eventually results in his death.

Legree was not the average southern slaveowner, but then neither were Tom's first two owners. The average was undoubtedly somewhere in between.

Personally, I thought one of the most disturbing sections involved a beautiful young octoroon(sp?) woman raised to the same lifestyle as her white half-sister. In other words, raised to be a typical refined and very religious southern lady. Her father dies and she is sold to help settle his debts. When Tom encounters her she is on her way to be sold in New Orleans to the highest bidder.

The book never spells it out, but the likely highest bidder in such a case would be a brothel. Any institution that allowed such things to even rarely occur legally was an evil institution.

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.