Posted on 02/04/2003 3:42:54 AM PST by kattracks
Washington (CNSNews.com) - A video presented at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington appears to suggest that former President Abraham Lincoln would have supported modern-day, left-of-center political causes such as homosexual rights, abortion rights and the modern feminist agenda.
One tourist from Wisconsin, who viewed the video in the memorial's Lincoln Legacy Room, called it "awful" and said the "political correctness of it is beyond words." Other visitors to the memorial told CNSNews.com they believe the video clearly implies that Lincoln would have supported left-wing political causes.
A National Park Service spokesman told CNSNews.com he was "reluctant" to comment on the Lincoln video because the whole issue had the "potential to be quite controversial."
The video features an actor who sounds like Lincoln speaking about the Civil War and slavery. He then leads into clips of Martin Luther King's 1963 March on Washington.
About halfway through the approximately eight-minute video, footage of modern-day marchers is shown over "Lincoln's" booming voice as patriotic music and songs associated with the civil rights movement play.
At this point, the video shows snippets from modern-day marches. A sign reading, "The Lord is my Shepard and Knows I am Gay" kicks off a series of visuals featuring left-wing social causes, while "Lincoln's voice" and patriotic music blare.
The other visuals include signs reading "Gay & Lesbian Sexual Rights," "Council of Churches Lesbian Rights," "National Organization for Woman" (NOW), "Reagan's Wrongs Equal Woman's Rights," "ERA Yes," "Ratify the Era," "I had an illegal abortion in 1967 - Never Again," "Keep Abortion Legal," "I am pro-choice America," a Vietnam-era video clip of a woman asking: "President. Nixon where are our men?" and a sign reading, "Who will Decide NARAL (National Abortion Rights & Reproductive Action League).
The video features the theme song of the civil rights movement, "We Shall Overcome," and continues with visual display of liberal causes, including signs reading "In Opposition to King Richard [Nixon]," "U.S. out Now," "Equal Opportunity for All," "Peace," "Hell No We Won't Go," "No More Lies, Sign the Treaty Now Coalition," and marchers chanting U.S. Out Now" (crowd chanting).
The video also features an excerpt from a Martin Luther King speech and then progresses into a banner reading "Pass the Brady [Gun Control] Bill Now." Pro-life demonstrators appear in the video once, in a brief clip where they are shown clashing with abortion rights activists. No other political causes that could be considered right-of-center appear in the video.
'Beyond Words'
CNSNews.com asked several of the tourists visiting the memorial what they thought of the video and whether they believed it implied Lincoln would support modern-day causes such as homosexual rights and abortion rights.
"I liked it... I think [Lincoln] would have [supported homosexual and abortion rights] because that's how Lincoln was; he was very supportive of the people. He didn't care who you are and what you are, he loved everybody," said Elizabeth Baksi, a high school student from Houma, La., after viewing the video.
Darre Klain of Baltimore, Md., also agreed that Lincoln would have supported today's liberal political causes as implied in the video.
[Lincoln] seemed like a very progressive, forward-thinking man, ahead of his time," Klain said.
But Paul Meisius of Sheboygan, Wis., rejected the video's message as he interpreted it, and he chastised the National Park Service for showcasing it.
"That's awful," Meisius said as he finished watching the video. "The political correctness of it is beyond words. I don't think that's proper. They are giving themselves credit to be able to say whatever they want about Lincoln's political views," Meisius told CNSNews.com.
"Our national monuments are being stripped of their true heritage. They are being uprooted and taken and changed. It's an atrocity that they are rewriting history in the sense that these people have political agendas," Meisius said.
Meisius, who was visiting Washington, D.C., with his wife and five children, believes the video is an attack by revisionist historians.
"The wrongness and incorrectness of this -- this stripping of the true essential biblical aspects of our foundation - are being replaced by political correctness," he said.
Angela Brewer, a program instructor for the Close Up Foundation, a citizenship education organization, denied the Lincoln video implied the former president would have supported modern-day, left-wing social causes.
"[The Lincoln Memorial] has frequently has been used as a backdrop for groups that seem to me to be liberal. I don't know that there is a particular purpose behind [the video]," Brewer said.
Gary Perkins, who coordinates exhibits at the Sweetwater Historical Museum in Green River, Wyo., has written about the difficulty our national museums face when presenting historical materials. Perkins believes that the National Park Service may be guilty of historical overreach with the video in question.
"We do not know what Abraham Lincoln thought of gay rights. We have no clue, he never talked about it," Perkins said after hearing CNSNews.com's description of the Lincoln Memorial video.
"We can't really infer he supported gay rights," Perkins added.
'Quite Controversial'
Bill Line, a spokesman for the National Park Service's National Capital Region, told CNSNews.com that the Discovery Channel produced the video for the Lincoln Memorial.
Asked if the video intentionally makes it appear as though Lincoln would have supported homosexual rights, abortion rights and feminist causes, Line was unequivocal in his initial answer.
"I have seen the video, and I don't know how you can contrive that out of it," Line said.
However, after specific examples of "liberal causes" were pointed out to him, Line backed away from his previous comment.
"I am reluctant, quite frankly, to say much to you because I don't know the whole other premise that you are coming from or the background or the fuller context that the story is being written in, and it has potential to be quite controversial," Line explained.
Finally, Line announced he needed to see the video again before he would have any official comment.
"It's been a while since I reviewed the videotape. Before I can adequately comment and give to you something you can use in your story, I need to go and review that videotape myself," Line said.
As of press time, Line had not contacted CNSNews.com with further comment on the video.
'Left-wing gestapo'
Cultural critic David Horowitz was not surprised by the description of the video that CNSNews.com provided. Horowitz believes that left-wing political perspectives are the dominant philosophy of the curators of the U.S.'s national monuments. Horowitz, a former 1960s radical, is co-founder of the Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of the Popular Culture.
"The whole museum field has been taken over by the left wing Gestapo," Horowitz said.
"People have to wake up. This is the America hating left. It is in charge of our national monuments. It's a disgrace and testament to how the academic history profession is totally dominated by the political left," Horowitz said.
E-mail a news tip to Marc Morano.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
It's hard to believe you really have an issue with Lincoln on the basis you suggest.
I think it a lot more likely you take exception to him even saying blacks should be free to enjoy the fruits of their own labor at all. And maybe with him saying they had an equal share in the promise in the Declaration of Independence.
In 1858, Lincoln said he was not in favor of making voters or jurors of blacks. In 1865 he clearly had changed this stance and was willing to see voting right conferred on the very intelligent and the soldiers. He had been directing that as many blacks as possible be recruited into the military for two years prior, as these letters indicate:
Private General Hunter
Executive Mansion
Washington D.C. April 1, 1863
My dear Sir:
I am glad to see the accounts of your colored force at Jacksonville, Florida. I see the enemy are driving at them fiercely, as is to be expected. It is mportant to the enemy that such a force shall not take shape, and grow, and thrive, in the south; and in precisely the same proportion, it is important to us that it shall. Hence the utmost caution and viglilance is necessary on our part. The enemy will make extra efforts to destroy them; and we should do the same to perserve and increase them.
Yours truly
A. Lincoln
_________________________________________________________
Hon. Andrew Johnson
Executive Mansion,
My dear Sir:
Washington, March 26. 1863.
I am told you have at least thought of raising a negro military force. In my opinion the country now needs no specific thing so much as some man of your ability, and position, to go to this work. When I speak of your position, I mean that of an eminent citizen of a slave-state, and himself a slave- holder. The colored population is the great available and yet unavailed of, force for restoring the Union. The bare sight of fifty thousand armed, and drilled black soldiers on the banks of the Mississippi, would end the rebellion at once. And who doubts that we can present that sight, if we but take hold in earnest? If you have been thinking of it please do not dismiss the thought.
Yours truly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon Soc of War
Executive Mansion
Washington
July 21, 1863
My Dear Sir:
I desire that a renewed and vigorous effort be made to raise colored forces along the shores of the Missippi [sic]. Please consult the General-in-chief; and if it is perceived that any acceleration of the matter can be effected, let it be done. I think the evidence is nearly conclusive that Gen. Thomas is one of the best, if not the very best, instruments for this service.
Yours truly
Lincoln was, as he said, willing to adopt new views as soon as they were shown to be new views.
And the new view was that blacks had a right to full citizenship.
I guess I wonder also how any good-hearted person today would disturb the myth -- if it were a myth -- of Lincoln's good heart. Why strive so hard to pull down what the United States stands for -- equal justice and opportunity for all?
walt
He very clearly separates himself from those who wanted full rights for blacks and lays down his exclusionary conditions.
You're just like the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".
You've no arms or legs. I suppose I could come close enough so that you could bite me.
Walt
His name did not appear on the ballot. Therefore he did not win any popular vote.
People knew the issues. The majority voted for Lincoln, just as the website said.
It certainly puts your bizarre idea that Douglas "won" the debates in the shade.
It was Lincoln, not Douglas who won the White House.
It's nonsense to say Douglas won.
But nonsense is your specialty.
Walt
It is not what you said a few posts back. You stated "There was not a nickel's worth of difference in what Washington, Madison, Jackson and Lincoln thought about Union and the Constitution."
I don't see any semantic difference between my two statements.
In any case, spin it any way you like. Lincoln was defending the Government of Washington, Madison and Jackson.
Whatshisname's contention that Lincoln set up big government (or whatever he said) is just wrong.
What a hoot!
Walt
Then post it! Show your evidence and let others check its context!
I've posted it before:
Robert E. Lee
to
Andrew Hunter
Headquarters Army of Northern Virginia
January 11, 1865
Hon. Andrew Hunter
Richmond, Va.:
Dear Sir:
I have received your letter of the 7th instant, and without confining myself to the order of your interrogatories, will endeavor to answer them by a statement of my views on the subject. I shall be most happy if I can contribute to the solution of a question in which I feel an interest commensurate with my desire for the welfare and happiness of our people.
Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population.
Should the war continue under the existing circumstances, the enemy may in course of time penetrate our country and get access to a large part of our negro population. It is his avowed policy to convert the able-bodied men among them into soldiers, and to emancipate all. The success of the Federal arms in the South was followed by a proclamation of President Lincoln for 280,000 men, the effect of which will be to stimulate the Northern States to procure as substitutes for their own people negroes thus brought within their reach. Many have already been obtained in Virginia, and should the fortune of war expose more of her territory, the enemy would gain a large accession to his strength. His progress will thus add to his numbers, and at the same time destroy slavery in a manner most pernicious to the welfare of our people. Their negroes will be used to hold them in subjection, leaving the remaining force of the enemy free to extend his conquest. Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it end in subverting slavery it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races. I think, therefore, we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which must be produced upon our social institutions. My opinion is that we should employ them without delay. I believe that with proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guaranty of military efficiency. Our chief aim should be to secure their fidelity.
There have been formidable armies composed of men having no interest in the cause for which they fought beyond their pay or the hope of plunder. But it is certain that the surest foundation upon which the fidelity of an army can rest, especially in a service which imposes peculiar hardships and privations, is the personal interest of the soldier in the issue of the contest. Such an interest we can give our negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully (whether they survive or not), together with the privilege of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful service.
We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours. The reasons that induce me to recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effect of the measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation. As that will be the result of the continuance of the war, and will certainly occur if the enemy succeed, it seems to me most advisable to adopt it at once, and thereby obtain all the benefits that will accrue to our cause.
The employment of negro troops under regulations similar in principle to those above indicated would, in my opinion, greatly increase our military strength and enable us to relieve our white population to some extent. I think we could dispense with the reserve forces except in cases of necessity.
It would disappoint the hopes which our enemies base upon our exhaustion, deprive them in a great measure of the aid they now derive from black troops, and thus throw the burden of the war upon their own people. In addition to the great political advantages that would result to our cause from the adoption of a system of emancipation, it would exercise a salutary influence upon our whole negro population, by rendering more secure the fidelity of those who become soldiers, and diminishing the inducements to the rest to abscond.
I can only say in conclusion that whatever measures are to be adopted should be adopted at once. Every day's delay increases the difficulty. Much time will be required to organize and discipline the men, and action may be deferred until it is too late.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
R.E. Lee,
General
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: Reprinted in Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, series IV, volume III (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900), pages 1012-1013.
Also see this website:
http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/Willis/Civil_War/documents/LeeHunter.html
But Lee is a great hero, and Lincoln is a bum. Neo-rebs are nothing but white supremacists. There is no other rationale for the positions you take.
Walt
If he did, he would not be alone. The Lincoln said the same thing a few years prior....
Lincoln never said any such thing. He indicated that there must be a position of superior and inferior and then in the next sentence said that blacks were meant to have the blessings of the D of I.
There is no way to shoehorn a master/slave relation into that position.
Walt
But you agree that Lincoln's position was more advanced than Douglas's, right?
Good for the voters of Illinois, right?
Walt
Yes Walt. He did say such a thing, and the adendum you speak of is nowhere to be found near that quote:
"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 forever 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. I say, upon the occasion, I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the black should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a Negro woman for a slave, I must necessarily want her for a wife." - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Which position? He took many contradictory ones during those debates.
Good for the voters of Illinois, right?
It all depends on which position. As a political leader for illinois independent of their issues, I do think Douglas was the better choice on the grounds that he was not a war mongering tyrant.
Are you from Hollywood?
A full reading of the letter immediately reveals that you neglected the remainder of its contents, especially this sentence:
"Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it end in subverting slavery it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races."
To accomplish this he then suggests "Such an interest we can give our negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully (whether they survive or not), together with the privilege of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful service."
Over and over and over again in the letter, Lee talks about the need for emancipation by way of military service. He remarks that the south can do this freely on its own and that this is the better course than having the yankees invade and do it by force.
In sum it seems that the letter you claimed to be a ringing endorsement for the preservation of slavery was in fact a letter recognizing the inevitability of its end and a call to achieve that by voluntary means rather than at the end of a yankee sword. Try again, Walt.
Then you are blinding yourself to your own words.
The first says "There was not a nickel's worth of difference in what Washington, Madison, Jackson and Lincoln thought about Union" then continues with the addendum "and the Constitution."
Your later revision states "There is not a nickel's worth of difference about the way that Washington, Madison, Jackson and Lincoln viewed the nature of the Union" and stops there with a period. The part about "and the Constitution" is conveniently left off.
In any case, spin it any way you like. Lincoln was defending the Government of Washington, Madison and Jackson.
If that is your position, I again note that you claimed that government was created strictly to benefit rich white guys. That would make it a racist government. And since Lincoln's view of that government, per your assertion, was identical to Washington et al, Lincoln must have been a racist according to your statements. Yet you have said many times that Lincoln was not a racist, some of them in direct conflict with his written words. That means that either you are lying about Lincoln's racism or you are lying about him sharing in his view of the government with Washington et al. Which is it?
Lincoln was not a candidate on the ballot. I know of no election where a candidate not on the ballot can recieve a popular vote majority from that same ballot. Your website only says that Democrats won the legislature though Republicans won greater numbers of votes in legislative races for their respective districts. Nowhere does it say that Lincoln won the popular vote, which he physically could not have seeing that there was no popular vote for his name as a candidate on the ballot.
It was Lincoln, not Douglas who won the White House.
Uh, Walt. That was a different race two years later. Try again.
A strong stand, but one that was eventually broken. Estimates I've seen say 3-4 hours instead of 6. In contrast, Sabine Pass actually sent the invading yankees into a full retreat to New Orleans. They abandoned the expedition because of it.
Do you believe in God?
If so, do you believe God is sovereign?
If so, what does 'sovereign' mean to you?
True, there also wouldn't have been a war if the south hadn't decided there would be one. :)
Uh, you DO know this is 2003 and that the Civil War was over hundreds of years ago, right?
Oh. Tell me again then, how Douglas won the debates?
Walt
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.