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.
The truth of his postition, which I believe he stated. As usual, Lincoln's own words prove Waltrot to be a liar in regards to Lincoln. Lincoln did NOT support full rights for blacks as Walt FALSELY claimed.
Had you bothered to include the complete quote, you would see that he was addressing Black sufferage in Louisiana.
In that speech he makes clear that he does not support the idea of full rights for blacks, separates himself from those that do, and outlines his exclusionary and prejudiced concepts for black suffrage.
Lincoln first suggested black voting rights in a letter to the governor of Louisiana in March 1864.
Yes, thank you for reminding about another historical source that clearly proves Waltrot's LIE for what it is. In that letter Lincoln clearly states that he was NOT for "full rights for blacks" as Waltrot falsely claims. He says in that letter:
"I barely suggest for your private consideration, whether some of the colored people may not be let in---as, for instance, the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks."
Notice the very exclusionary aspects of Abe's idea of black suffrage, which clearly proves again that wlat LIED. Lincoln did NOT endorse full rights for blacks.
You claim that President Lincoln was separating himself from those who wanted full rights for blacks. Well, who were they?
You don't know much about history. The ones in Congress were called 'radical republicans'. They were Lincoln's political opponents within his own party, and it was they, not Lincoln, who actually freed the slaves. It was they, not Lincoln, who guaranteed full rights for blacks. It was they who saw to it that Lincoln's exclusionary and prejudiced ideas about black suffrage were outlawed. Once again, Wlat LIED, Lincoln did NOT support full rights for blacks.
How were they hindered by President Lincoln's actions?
He, as president, had this little thing called a veto. Also, he had a wee bit of influence due to the fact that he was President.
Where are those who were pushing for more than the President was willing to give?
In Congress, and outside it. If you had bothered to read his last speech, which you claim knowledge of, he repeatedly references those people in it, since he makes mention of their criticism of him in regards to the matter. In the quote I originally provided, they are the "some" that Lincoln separates himself from. Here it is again:
"It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
He is addressing their criticism of him, and putting forth his own views on the matter. Once again, Wlat lied, Lincoln did NOT support full rights for blacks. That was the point of my post, and it is correct.
Sufferage is also a state issue. President Lincoln could not by executive order give blacks the vote throughout the country.
That's not the issue, the issue was whether or not he supported full rights for blacks, which he very obviously did not. Waltrot lied, and I was correct to point out and disprove his perversion of the historical record.
Given what he had to work with why is his position surprising?
Who said it was surprising? I was only pointing out that Waltrot had once again LIED and distorted the historical record. Anyone who has read my posts regarding Lincoln will see that I have innumerable times pointed out the importance of historical perspective when viewing his prejudiced race views. It was the 1800s.
Sufferage for some was a first step, a step that nobody but President Lincoln was willing to fight for.
That, like Waltrot's, is a lie. Lincoln's political opponents within his own party had tried before to give blacks freedom and rights, and Lincoln stood in their way. As evidenced by his own words, he separated himself from 'those', and preferred instead to promote his exclusionary and prejudiced ideas of suffrage. "Those" opponents of his made sure his exclusionary ideas were outlawed. Once again, Waltrot lied, Lincoln did NOT support full rights for blacks. That is history.
But that obviously escaped you.
What has escaped you is a basic knowledge of history, and the truth with it.
No. I condemn those who claim that The Lincoln was some champion of modern equality and civil rights. The Lincoln was very much a racist and you can infer into that what you like. Personally, I consider it a reflection of a dominant view in his own time. But others here, including the Claremonsters and Wlat will not even concede that The Lincoln practiced racism not unlike those who existed in his own time. They will not concede this because doing so means they have to admit a flaw of their false god. That is historical dishonesty at its worst.
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.
Don't you mean The Lincoln's proposed and passed 13th amendment? Cause it stripped Congress of any interference with the "domestic institutions" of any state, including slavery.
His proposed 14th Amendment would have denied blacks the right to vote or hold office
The Lincoln promoted exactly that view in his famous debate speeches.
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.
Are you sure you are not discussing The Lincoln? Cause he set up an office in his administration to do exactly that. He even tried to contract with a businessman in Haiti to send them there, though the contract later fell through.
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.
In other words, The Lincoln's first 13th amendment.
Yeah, to the point of contradicting himself. He espoused equality in some places, then adopted of the conditions of inferior and superior in others. Douglas called him on it and sent him into a semantical bullsh*t fest that was so transparent it could make Clinton's "meaning of is" line look believable by comparison.
especially as it is similar to making a horse chestnut into a chestnut horse.
To paraphrase that tactic you so often do, as it was described in a line defending slavery by The Lincoln.
No, not really. And in all honesty, I do not see how calling you on an attempt to change the subject pertains to an evasion of the record on anyones part but yours.
Notice the very exclusionary aspects of Abe's idea of black suffrage, which clearly proves again that wlat LIED. Lincoln did NOT endorse full rights for blacks.
The most that you can say about Lincoln's quest for equal rights for blacks is that he was interrupted in that quest.
Lincoln was seeing what people --would-- accept. He used this technique throughout his presidency.
Many people were -adamantly-- opposed to blacks being around at all, let alone as voters and jurors. Lincoln was doing what he could to change that. He clearly supported equal rights for blacks. But the longest journey begins with the shortest step.
Follow your idea to its conclusion. All 179,000 black union soldiers become voters. The war ends. Then what?
Are no more allowed to become voters? Except maybe the very intelligent? That sure doesn't keep whites from voting.
Lincoln was clearly clearing the way for equal rights for blacks.
Walt
You said "Lee agreed that the system of chattel slavery in the south was a positive good, both rational and Christian, and thus an institution fit to be made permanent to serve as the cornerstone of the Confederate "nation"."
As "evidence" of this statement, you offered a letter in which Lee called for the emancipation and compensation of slaves and their families in exchange for serving in the army.
In the words of another defender of slavery, you were trying to make a chestnut horse out of a horse chestnut.
You put up that 1856 letter about how bad Lee supposedly thought slavery was.
I already quoted from it. The text is as follows:
"I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course."
I have corrected and disproven your repetition of that falsehood before, and most lurkers know it.
I also don't know why you want to belittle Lincoln.
LOL - I'm not trying to "belittle Lincoln". How sad your pathetic fantasy must be when the simple truth "belittles" your false image. History is, and Lincoln's own words often destroy your perverse revisionist explanations of what he "really meant". As Lincoln himself said: "I fear explanations explanatory of things explained". LOL - That's what your revisionist fraud is, Walt, "explanations explanatory of things explained". If I have to choose between your explanation of what Lincoln meant versus his, I think I'll go with his.
'Breadbasket of the confederacy'? Did they eat the stuff?
That cotton was in east Texas, unimpeded by the war, and The Lincoln set out to get it.
That can hardly be the reason since there wasn't much of it. In the year prior to the war of the 3 million bales of cotton exported from the south only 68,000 came through Galveston. Not enough to make a dent in the Northern demand. If the purpose was to get cotton it made more sense to go where the cotton was, in Alabama and Mississippi and South Carolina, instead of Texas where the cotton wasn't.
Because of the blockade what traffic there was out of the Galveston area tended to be one way - during some periods over 80% of the ships which left never returned, either with cargo or to pick up another load. By the time of Sabine Pass Vicksburg had fallen and the Mississippi was cut so nothing in the area could make its way east. The Texas authorities were looking more towards Matamoras as a port rather than the useless Galveston area. So Sabine Pass was a minor sideshow of the war, an embarassment for the Union commander, perhaps, but nothing more. It didn't delay the outcome of the war by a single day.
You said "Lee agreed that the system of chattel slavery in the south was a positive good, both rational and Christian, and thus an institution fit to be made permanent to serve as the cornerstone of the Confederate "nation"."
Is that what you said I said? I forget.
That was a quote from a book. I even cited the book.
I haven't seen anything from Lee to change that.
Why did Lee refuse Grant's idea to exchange black Union POW's for white?
Because he didn't want to sing "Cumbayah" with them?
Lee was a product of his time. That time was stratified and gentrified. He thought blacks inferior, and probably poor whites too. Look at his nickname. "Marse Robert." What's funny is how the "mean whites" ate it up.
Walt
He wasn't doing that in 1861. In 1861 he was saying that it was idle to talk of secession.
He changed his tune about freeing blacks only when his army was meltng away.
Lessee, that letter was January 11, 1865.
The next month he wrote that "hundreds of our men are deserting nightly."
And:
"A new England private said that each evening the men in the company would speculate about the number of deserters who would come in that night: "The boys talk about the Johnnies as at home we talk about suckers and eels. The boys will look around in the evening and guess that there will be a good run of Johnnies." Heavy firing on the picket line was always taken to mean that the enemy was trying to keep deserters from getting away."
"A Stillness at Apotmattox" pp 330-31, by Bruce Catton
I'd say Lee was a bit late in coming to Jesus.
Walt
No, I'm talking about the 13th Amendment proposed by Douglas in his compromise proposal:
"Section 1. Congress shall make no law in respect to slavery or servitude in any Territory of the United States, and the status of each Territory in respect to servitude, as the same now exists by law, shall remain unchanged until the Territory, with such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall have a population of fifty thousand white inhabitants, when the white male citizens thereof over the age of twenty-one years may proceed to form a constitution and government for themselves and exercise all the rights of self-government consistent with the Constitution of the United States; and when such new States shall acquire the requisite population for a member of Congress, according to the then federal ratio of representation, it shall be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without slavery, as the constitution of such new States shall provide at the time of admission; and in the meantime such new States shall be entitled to one delegate to the Senate, to be chosen by the legislature, and one delegate to the House of Representatives, to be chosed by the people having the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the legislature; and said delegates shall have all the rights and prvileges of senators and representatives respectively, except that of voting."
It was his proposed 14th Amendment which prevented blacks from voting or from Congress of ever passing an amendment interfering with it:
"Section 1. The elective franchise and the right to hold office, whether federal, State, territorial, or municipal, shall not be exercised by persons of the African race, in whole or in part.
Section 2. The United States shall have power to acquire, from time to time, districts of country in Africa and South America, for the colonization, at expense of the federal Treasury, of such free negroes and mulattoes as the several States may wish to have removed from their limits, and from the District of Columbia, and such other places as may be under the jurisdication of Congress.
Section 3. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in the places under its jurisdiction and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves.
Section 4. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation first made to such owners of slaves as do not consent to such abolishment. Nor shall Congress at any time prohibit officers of the federal government, or members of Congress, whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them their slaves and holding them as such during the time their duties may require them to remain there, and afterwards taking them from the District.
Section 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to another, or to a Territory in which slaves are permitted by law to be held, whether such transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by sea; but the African slave trade shall be forever suppressed, and it shall be the duty of Congress to make such laws as shall be necessary and effectual to prevent the migration or importation of slaves or persons owing serivces or labor, into the United States from any foreign country, place, or jurisdiction whatever.
Section 6. In addition to the provision of the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, Congress shall have power to provide by law, and it shall be its duty so to provide, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave, in all cases when the marshall, or other officer whose duty it was to arrest said fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation; or when, after arrest, said fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of his fugitive slave, under the said clause of the Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof; and in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such fugitives, they shall have the right, in their own name, to sue the county in which said violence, intimidation, or rescue was committed, and to recover from it, with interest and damages, the amount paid by them for said fugitive slave.
Section 7. No future amendment of the Constitution shall effect this and the preceding article; nor the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution; nor the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of said Constitution; and no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is or may be allowed or sanctioned."
In every respect Douglas endorsed policies which were harsher and more restrictive. Those are the amendment that Douglas proposed and which you, apparently, prefer since they came from what you consider the better man.
None of this means that Lincoln would have been a gay rights supporter, just that his upbringing might indeed have led him to a more leftist view of the world, had he lived long enough. I think it is a stretch to consider Lincoln a conservative.
What escapes me is your version of history and your interpretation of it.
Oooh, that's bad. It's important to belittle poor ol' Lincoln, but that leaves you supporting the slave power.
Wouldn't want to make a modern day judgement on -them-, though.
Walt
Waltrot:
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.
So now anyone who proves you a liar is a racist. Mr. Sharpton, is that you? You have reached a new low, Waltrot, and the lurkers will realise it clearly. So much for your credibility with them. All should take note of the fact that it was I who took issue in defense of all those who would have been rejected by Lincoln's exclusionary and prejudiced ideas of black suffrage. I say again, What of the rest?
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.
Too bad he never said that. Too bad he specifically said he only supported giving rights to "the very intelligent" ones, and to "those who serve our cause as soldiers". What of the rest?
I guess I wonder also how any good-hearted person today would disturb the 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?
Considering that you just suggested I was racist for no other reason than I proved you a liar, you very obviously are not a "good-hearted" person. Also, considering the fact that most of your posts are full of lies and/or slander, you very obviously are not a "good-hearted" person. And the lurkers should be made aware that you personally consider the Constitution to be a "Pact with the Devil", so your concerns about "what America stands for" are extememly suspect. As to "pulling down what America stands for", if you seriously think that exposing your lie about Lincoln does that, then you are confusing Lincoln with America itself. The truth about Lincoln's position on the issue of black suffrage is that he did not want equal justice for all, only for some, "the very intelligent" ones, and those that "serve our cause as soldiers", as he specifically stated it himself. History is, Truth is, and neither seem to have much in common with you.
Okay. Just seeking clarification, cause the amendment you described sounded very similar to The Lincoln's.
Of you kept your eyes open you would have. The very same letter you quoted shows Lee advocating emancipation in exchange for service. That does not support a claim that he sought that slavery "be made permanent to serve as the cornerstone of the Confederate "nation"."
Actually the proposed 13th Amendment resembles the one that was part of the Crittenden Compromise:
Crittenden Compromise
"...and no amendment will be made to the Constitution which shall authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is, or may be, allowed or permitted"
13th Amendment passed by Congress:
"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."
That was a Democrat proposal, if memory serves.
LOL! No, I was borrowing a phrase from a statement somebody made at the time...I forget exactly who...to describe Texas' cotton reserves. The concept behind it is this -
Texas, due to its geography, was able to continue its cotton production relatively unimpeded by the war. This led to stores of it that amassed in the eastern part of the state. Texas by way of Galveston was also the only state in the confederacy to consistently hold its ports open throughout the war. The yankees took the other ports around the south but could never get a foothold in Galveston. They were thrown out by the confederates shortly after their only occupation of the city. It was therefore a consistent place of entry and exit for the confederate blockade runners. In this sense Texas was able to provide trade for the confederacy - they had the cotton to trade out and the only consistently open port to facilitate the blockade runners who were doing it.
That can hardly be the reason since there wasn't much of it. In the year prior to the war of the 3 million bales of cotton exported from the south only 68,000 came through Galveston.
Ah, but that shifted significantly when the Louisiana ports such as New Orleans fell. Texas' cotton was in the east and could potentially go out by way of Galveston but also Beaumont by way of the Sabine and Louisiana by way of the northern part of that state. When Louisiana's main outlet, the Mississippi, fell, Galveston was left as the major port of exit.
Not enough to make a dent in the Northern demand. If the purpose was to get cotton it made more sense to go where the cotton was, in Alabama and Mississippi and South Carolina, instead of Texas where the cotton wasn't.
First, your stats are incomplete. Second, those three states had experienced severe drops in cotton production because the war was being waged literally in their back yards. Texas continued producing unimpeded though.
Because of the blockade what traffic there was out of the Galveston area tended to be one way - during some periods over 80% of the ships which left never returned, either with cargo or to pick up another load.
At times this was true. At other times in the war the path was practically open into and out of Galveston. For example the Alabama paid a visit to the area for a brief period and brought its own havoc of dispersement to union operators in the area.
By the time of Sabine Pass Vicksburg had fallen and the Mississippi was cut so nothing in the area could make its way east.
More difficult, yes. But impossible, no.
So Sabine Pass was a minor sideshow of the war, an embarassment for the Union commander, perhaps, but nothing more. It didn't delay the outcome of the war by a single day.
Much to the contrary. Had Sabine Pass not halted the invasion from the gulf, there would have been no Red River campaign.
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.