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.
Uh, Walt. That was a different race two years later. Try again.
The debates set the stage. Lincoln was nobody before the debates. He "won" the debates in a much more tangible sense than your endorsement of Douglas' prowess shows.
What this particular weird seque shows is your perverse objection to -anything- Lincoln accomplished. You are saying a lot more about yourself than you are him.
Walt
That wouldn't be a new interpretation.
I forget if it was Sam Adams or John Adams who said, "when the pot boils, the scum will rise."
Walt
"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.
"I knew a man Bojangles,
and he'd dance for you--
the old soft shoe..."
Oh wait. You're tap dancing.
Walt
New or not, the issue is whether it is your interpretation. If it is indeed your interpretation of Washington et al in their views, and if it is also your interpretation, as you have oft asserted, that The Lincoln shared identically in those views, then The Lincoln was a racist contrary to your assertions elsewhere.
Don't change the subject, Walt. You asserted that Lincoln won some unknown popular vote that seems to have not occurred. Whether the debates helped Lincoln gain national prominence is not the matter of contention here. I have asked you repeatedly to state your case on how The Lincoln won the popular vote when he was not even a candidate to be voted on by the people at large.
At the very least you should be able to provide evidence for your claim, such as the vote totals showing how much The Lincoln "won" by. Yet you do not and cannot because there are no such totals - he wasn't on the ballot. Finding that to be the case, it now seems you have drifted into evasion territory by trying to change the subject to the prominence The Lincoln gained from those debates. Your desparation could not be more obvious.
And you thought Al Qaeda was a threat; it's really General Sherman that they are still worried about for whatever reason.
By publicly making an issue of the contradictions in The Lincoln's speeches from town to town.
That whole charade you've been playing about this letter is par for the course for a liar of your caliber.
So yes Walt, your dance is well known around here. It follows tall is short, day is night, war is peace, black is white etc. etc. etc....
People can read Lee's letter and make their own conclusions.
Walt
The accomplishment of Sabine Pass was not to break the blockade of Galveston (which, by the way, remained a haven for blockade runners to the end of the war). It was to thwart the attempt of The Lincoln to seize east Texas' cotton stores, the so-called "breadbasket of the confederacy" during the war. The dissolution of foreign trade and the war had left the north short on cotton and in economic chaos in those industries. That cotton was in east Texas, unimpeded by the war, and The Lincoln set out to get it. His mission was of two purposes - get the cotton for the north, and in doing so take from the south what it had been running through the blockades for its own sustanence.
Sabine Pass thwarted this mission, forcing The Lincoln to try again. The next try was called the Red River campaign. He put together a 45,000 man invasion force along with 58 warships - the largest inland fleet ever assembled on the North American continent. He sent them to invade from northern Louisiana. They were thwarted again at Mansfield.
New or not, the issue is whether it is your interpretation. If it is indeed your interpretation of Washington et al in their views, and if it is also your interpretation, as you have oft asserted, that The Lincoln shared identically in those views, then The Lincoln was a racist contrary to your assertions elsewhere.
Washington, Madison, Jackson and Lincoln vary not one whit in their view of the permanance of Union.
You should stop the creative writing and prove otherwise in their words.
Walt
That they can and any sane, reasonable person will notice how blatantly you were lying. You claimed to have a letter from Lee that was a ringing endorsement of continuing slavery at all costs and as a good for the confederacy.
I pressured you for that letter, and sure enough it is a call for the confederate government to offer slaves and their families emancipation and compensation in exchange for fighting! In other words, the complete opposite of what you claimed it was.
Do you know when the War of Yankee Aggression(as it is properly designated) took place? Apparently not. It wasn't "hundreds of years ago".
By publicly making an issue of the contradictions in The Lincoln's speeches from town to town.
There's no doubt that Lincoln couched his argument in different terms as he moved further into southern Illinois. But I reckon the record can stand your interpretation -- especially as it is similar to making a horse chestnut into a chestnut horse.
Lincoln wound up in the White House. Douglas did not.
That process started in these debates.
Walt
You condemn Lincoln for his views on the races and you believe Douglas was the better choice? His views on the races make Lincoln look like a champion of diversity. His proposed 13th Amendment stripped Congress of any power to regulate slavery in the territories, although it would have allowed states to decide if they would be slave or not. His proposed 14th Amendment would have denied blacks the right to vote or hold office, and would have required that the government obtain land in Africa for the purpose of sending any black person a state wished to see sent there, at government expense. In other words, the very forced emigration you claim Lincoln supported. It would have also prevented Congress from ever passing any laws limiting slavery where they had jurisdiction or any amendment that limited slavery in any way.
And in the end, once the south initiated the war, Douglas was a strong supporter of the administration and its war aims to the point of giving up his life for it. So I fail to see where Douglas would have been better. But I suppose any 'racist' is acceptable to you, so long as it isn't Lincoln and any 'tyrant' is acceptable to you so long as it isn't Lincoln.
Don't try to change the subject, Walt. You stated not only this but that they held identical views of the Constitution. You also stated that the Constitution was created by those same men for racist purposes.
If both of your statements are true, that means that The Lincoln was also a racist. Yet that contradicts your claims elsewhere. I am asking you "which is it?" Is The Lincoln's view identical, making him a racist, or is he not a racist, meaning his view is not identical? You can't have it both ways.
That they can and any sane, reasonable person will notice how blatantly you were lying. You claimed to have a letter from Lee that was a ringing endorsement of continuing slavery at all costs and as a good for the confederacy.
Did I say that?
You put up that 1856 letter about how bad Lee supposedly thought slavery was.
I'd say this 1865 letter says it's not so bad after all. In fact, I'd day that Lee's opinion is that the relationship of master and slave should only be broken up if large powerful armies are kicking down the door.
Walt
Don't try to change the subject, Walt.
That seems to be your line when the record won't support you.
Whatshisname said that Lincoln ushered in big government, when the record shows Washington, Madison and Jackson saying pretty much the same thing Lincoln did.
Sorry that doesn't suit you.
Walt
Are you still using confederate money by chance?
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.