Posted on 11/30/2012 12:10:03 PM PST by Kaslin
Every schoolchild with enough smarts and curiosity to get beyond the latest video game of "Call of Duty" ought to go see "Lincoln," the movie, and check out the references and his own attention span. It requires patience, but it shows through dramatic action how a self-taught rustic from the deep backwoods had the emotional and intellectual discipline to overcome poverty and grow up to be a president to rank among the greatest.
This is not about the American Dream or a Horatio Alger story. (Does anybody remember him?) Nor is it mythmaking. It's made of sterner stuff than that. Although there are 16,000 or so books about Lincoln, and a famous movie with Henry Fonda as the young Lincoln, there's enough freshness in this late portrait to animate anyone eligible to watch a movie with the PG-13 rating.
To whet an appetite, there's the excerpt available on the Internet where the president, played by Daniel Day Lewis, explains his political philosophy to two young men working in the White House telegraph office. Lincoln recalls Euclid's 2,000-year-old dissertation on mechanical reasoning, the principle that "things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other." Euclid says it's "self-evident." Lincoln agrees.
Such nuggets of wisdom abound, along with references from Shakespeare and a bawdy story about a portrait of George Washington hanging in an outhouse to inspire relief for British soldiers in the Revolutionary War. Lincoln was a learned man, but he was earthy, too. He drew on deep learning and applied it widely. He talks in parables and finds a story to illustrate just about every situation and strategy.
In one scene, while he waits with his Cabinet for news of the shelling of Wilmington, N.C., he begins a story: "I heard tell once." The phrase so exasperates Secretary of War Edwin Stanton that he walks away, telling the president, "I don't believe that I can bear to hear another one of your stories right now." This is no marble president on a pedestal.
But Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" is an epic of sorts. It begins in the middle of things. The Civil War, though nearing the end, has been going on for four years. Lincoln is the old "war horse," but unlike Spielberg's earlier movie of that name, "Lincoln" has only one brutal battle scene.
The most poignant evocation of war shows Lincoln riding through a field of ripped and rotting corpses, and Lincoln takes off his stovepipe hat in homage to the dead, North and South and Americans all. This is not a hymn to "arms and the man" so much as a long mournful dirge played on the strings of banjos, fiddles and the keys of a parlor piano. It's as gritty and earthbound as the America of Mark Twain.
This "Lincoln" is not about heroism and ideals, but about reality and fighting for what's right, even when "right" is seen from two distinctly different points of view -- or, as Lincoln puts it, "the right as God gives us to see the right." If there was no room to compromise over slavery before the war, the struggles for compromise are not over afterward because the winds of war still blow. They merely change direction.
While every schoolchild knows that Abe Lincoln freed the slaves, not many that I've met actually know how he did it. Few seem to understand that the Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in the 11 Confederate states. Fewer still know why Lincoln thought it crucial before he began his second term, and before the war was over, to enact the 13th Amendment to give all men equality under the law. That's the tight focus of the movie.
I watched "Lincoln" with two precocious teenagers, who in spite of their bravado and smarts leaned toward the screen to listen closely to Lincoln's complicated and legalistic explanation of why the country needed the 13th Amendment. They conceded they learned things they didn't know about both the law and Lincoln. (So did I.)
This is a talky movie. Compared to popular 3-D spectacles, it's muted and low-key. Many reviewers have written about how it's "relevant" today, and that Barack Obama could learn from Lincoln's cunning to keep from falling off the fiscal cliff. A knowing titter goes through audiences in Washington when Thaddeus Stevens, the radical Republican abolitionist from Pennsylvania, castigates Lincoln for his inability to win legislative compromise. "I lead," Lincoln says. "You ought to try it."
But it's about a lot more than relevance. It informs as it entertains, engages, enrages, champions, challenges and reminds once again how hard it is to bring about change in a democracy -- and do it with malice toward none.
Then you've got even less excuse for buying into the Old South mythology.
If I had a nickel for everybody who thinks they've discovered bold new truths about the Civil War when they're just repeating what Southerners told themselves a century ago, I'd be a rich man.
And a lot of people are getting rich off retreading the old rationalizations as new discoveries -- DiLorenzo, the Kennedy Brothers, etc.
They also get their nickels from people who learned the old Southern mythology in school a half century ago, who've convinced themselves that they were taught something very different and only recently discovered the "truth" that they were actually spoon-fed in grade school.
So then what does the "SC" stand for?
Wait a minute...don't answer that.
Ah but you don’t understand. It can all be easily explained away as money and power. You needn’t look any further.
/s
ad hominem (that’s Latin)
I don’t buy the mythology of the South anymore than the mythology of the North. Economics. Money. Power. That;s what wars are fought over. And Lincoln was not a god.
Oh, I thought it stood for Scientific Consultant, or semi-conductor, or supercharged. (that's Merkin)
Specifically, the wording of the Corwin Amendment was:
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
Upon a critical reading you will note that it forbade Federal interference in states with laws holding people to service.
Your comment that it did not legalize slavery everywhere was fallacious. Here is what you said: "In those states where slavery was illegal, it would remain illegal."
That is on its face not true. The amendment said no such thing.
In ratifying this Amendment, any prohibitive legal consequences for its practice were forbidden.
Thus it remained an option for each state to determine that issue themselves without fear of prohibition.
Should any state decide to reinstate slavery, as it could do so freely, then the Federal government could not interfere.
Simply put, if Indiana or Oregon decided by state law that wanted to reinstate slavery, then according to Corwin, there were no Federal regulations to deny that right.
More importantly, it is quite clear that Lincoln's alleged morality was mitigated by his need for political survival of the union.
In referring to the secession documents, you said:
“A couple of them may not mention slavery as a primary cause of secession, but most do.”
Actually that is not factual.
None of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.
However, four states published their reasoning in individual state decrees, which of course, were not legally representative of the state actions.
Therefore, any notion that these documents were formal, legal explanations is totally false.
"It would legalize slavery everywhere in the Union." That is not true.
The Corwin Amendment would not legalize slavery everywhere in the union. Only the states, acting on their own, could do so, which of course they could do anyway before the passing of Corwin.
The only purpose of Corwin was to re-ensure slave holding states that the Feds wouldn't come in and free their slaves.
Lincoln supported it because it made no material change to facts on the ground and yes, Lincoln desparately wanted to avoid a war.
Self defense to what?
2/21/1861 The U. S. Congress authorized the funding of 7 modern steam powered screw sloops of War. During the debate, congressional members openly discussed the need of these vessels for the upcoming war with the South.
Self defense? The Confederacy had no navy.
3/29/1861 Two weeks after the newspapers in the North caught on to the low tariff issue now being instituted in Southern ports, they began to inflame militant war fever with their aggressive editorials, and calling for war.
Self defense? Yes, economic self defense via the United States military.
That same day, Lincoln called another meeting of his cabinet. He asked them again for their views on sending a naval force to reinforce Fort Sumter. Again, all except one were certain it would initiate the war that they all wanted to avoid.
Self defense?
Lincoln introduced Gustavus Fox, still a civilian, who presented his Fort Sumter re-supply plan to the Cabinet. Under the plan, tugboats would pull troop and supply ships into the harbor. It was anticipated that Confederate gunners would resist and fire upon the fleet and therefore the US flag. This would mean that unarmed tugboats would be hit first, a strong political advantage.
Not seeking political advantages, Lincoln's cabinet pointed out that the fort had no value now with secession, and it wasn't worth starting a war over a useless fort.
Lincoln saw it differently. From his expedient perspective of military coercion of the South, Sumter was a prize to be maintained, and it could cripple and shut down the major Atlantic port of entry to the Confederacy. Rather than being of no value, as the secretaries maintained, in Lincoln's mind it was of value beyond measure.
By use of military coercion in Charleston Harbor, a success would lead to holding this vital harbor. If the naval venture failed, it would likely be due to Confederate fire on the flag of the United States. This would give the President the authority to invade the South.
Self defense?
He had seen a war intentionally instigated once before. As a Whig congressman during the Mexican War, he had seen President Polk send an armed force to the Rio Grande to provoke the Mexicans into a shooting war that Polk could blame on the Mexicans. Also, in conducting the war, President Polk ignored the Constitution and assumed some of the powers of Congress. And Polk did all this without getting impeached.
Lincoln likely realized that he could do the same sorts of things and get away with it.
After the meeting on this same day, Lincoln sent notes to the Secretaries of War and Navy: “I desire that an expedition, to move by sea, be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April…”
These orders were all marked private. These instructions had been written the day before by ex-navy captain Fox who was acting under Lincoln, and without any legal authority.
Lincoln was also bypassing the chain of command, and the Constitution of the United States because he had instructed Seward to secretly take money from his office at the Department of State and to give the money to Fox to pay for the quasi-military invasion of Charleston and Pensacola harbors in April of 1861.
Some of our posting neighbors here like to cloud the issue by feigning historical revisionism bias. But they cannot refute that all of the historians cannot deny these points because they are well documented and commonly known.
1. The Dred Scott Decision from March of 1857 clearly showed that the Supreme Court supported slave ownership.
2. With Lincoln's behind the scenes maneuvering, it is clear that he was not supporting abolition.
3. With Congress’ adoption of Corwin, it formalized protection of states from congressional interference with slavery, and made no limitation on state sovereignty regarding its legality.
But it also can be considered to be an amendment to Article V of the Constitution, because it would significantly and expressly have curtailed future federal amending power.
As originally ratified, Article V included the express limitation on prevention of the abolition of slavery by amendment until 1808.
The Corwin amendment in effect renewed the limitation in perpetuity.
You would agree that this meets the definition of legalization of slavery.
Perhaps more importantly, in summary, on the eve of Lincoln sending ships to Charleston and Pensacola to initiate the conflict, all three branches of the United States government were endorsing and protecting slavery.
That is lost on people such as Ken Burns and Spielberg.
None of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.
Actually that is not factual.
The Virginia ordinance refers to "the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States."
The Alabama ordinance mentions, "the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States." It also refers to "he election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama." What were those "domestic institutions."
The Texas ordinance states, "the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States."
However, four states published their reasoning in individual state decrees, which of course, were not legally representative of the state actions.
Therefore, any notion that these documents were formal, legal explanations is totally false.
The ordinances of secession simply stated that a bond of union had been dissolved. If you want to understand the reason for that, what better place to go than to the Declarations of the Causes of Secession approved by various "authorities"?
FWIW: The second to last paragraph should have been italicized to indicate it wasn’t my opinion but quoted material.
FWIW: The second to last paragraph should have been italicized to indicate it wasn’t my opinion but quoted material.
FWIW: The second to last paragraph should have been italicized to indicate it wasn’t my opinion but quoted material.
"Read the ordinances of secession passed by the various southern states. A couple of them may not mention slavery as a primary cause of secession, but most do, loud and clear".
The poster is obviously confused as to what documents were "passed" and represented official statements, and documents on secession that were published by sources that provided nothing more than commentaries that do not reflect legal actions of the state governments.
I stated the fact that "None of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union."
You said that "Actually that is not factual" and quoted passages using the geographic references, having nothing to do with the poster's assertion that "(most of the ordinances) mention slavery as a primary cause of secession."
His assertion was shown to be false, and you attempted to confuse the issue.
So, it is you that are not being factual.
This is not the first time recently that you have provided erroneous and confusing posts.
That Texas and Virginia did give reasons -- "that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression" and "the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States" -- and Alabama mentioned a desire "to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose" leaves us in litte doubt that slavery was a major -- the major -- cause of their action.
The "Declarations of the Reasons of Secession" were intended to fill in the gaps that the merely legalistic ordinances left. They may or may not have carried the same legal weight as the ordinances -- though if secession was unconstitutional they probably did. I don't know if they were official in the highest sense, but they can certainly be regarded as semi-official or quasi-official, since they issued from participants themselves. In any event, I don't recall anyone complaining that they were wildly inaccurate and unreflective of the mood of the conventions.
It looks like all you are doing is setting rhetorical traps and using technical quibbles to justify put-downs of other posters, rather than trying to get at substantive truths.
If pointing out the poster's errors and your misrepresentations can, in your mind, be called technical quibbles and traps, then no wonder you are so misinformed about antebellum U. S. history.
As I correctly pointed out, none of the Declarations of Secession gave slavery as a reason for leaving the Union. The poster was misinformed as to the truth, as are most that think they know the reasons for secession. They always point out and misrepresent the truth of the documents.
You, on the other hand, know that what I pointed out was the truth. You did not bother to quote the unofficial documents, but attempted to misrepresent the formal documents.
And you accuse me of childish sophistry when you deliberately misrepresent the facts while trying to insert your canards.
Here is an example of your type of comments that allege something that was not said:
“But to say that none of the ordinances gave indications of the reasons behind the actions of the legislatures or conventions would not be correct.”
That is a pure example of your disgusting sense of fair debate.
I have to admit that drawing the distinction between the Ordnances of Secession and the Declarations of the Reasons of Secession is technically correct - even if it is just a half-step above playing spelling nazi.
If he he wishes to indulge in leftist hair-splitting exercises then I would respond that the ambiguity he presents in “Therefore, any notion that these documents were formal, legal explanations is totally false” is itself false because he failed to explicitly define which exact documents he was referring to with respect that that particular response.
*rollseyes*
I didn't realize that "slaveholding" was actually only a geographical designation.
I'll bear that in mind the next time I head slaveholding-bound on I-95 to Florida.
It could come in handy if I have to ask for directions in Georgia or Slaveholding Carolina.
Of course if a geographical designation was all that was intended, "Southern" or "South" would have served their purpose.
"Slaveholding" or "slave-holding" served a purpose and wasn't just thrown in by accident.
The poster is obviously confused as to what documents were "passed" and represented official statements, and documents on secession that were published by sources that provided nothing more than commentaries that do not reflect legal actions of the state governments.
The "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" was authorized by the President of the South Carolina Convention and signed by the President and his clerk. It was written by Christopher Memminger who chaired the committee which wrote the Confederate constitution. He served as Confederate Secretary of the Treasury. That's official enough for me.
The Texas and Mississippi Declarations were published by the official state printers together with the secession ordinances. The Georgia Declaration was stamped "Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861," so presumably it also had some official approval by the Convention or Legislature.
It would take a lot of research to figure out who authorized and approved what, but if one is interested in understanding the reasons for secession, one can't simply dismiss the declarations issued from and by (in one way and another) the seceding bodies.
Nor would it be accurate to say that none of the ordinances gave slavery as a reason for secession. While not primarily intended to give any reasons, at least two and perhaps three do indicate the importance of slavery in the secession decision.
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.