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.
No. You are mistaking it for William Seward's alternate proposal to the Crittenden one.
That was a Democrat proposal, if memory serves.
Seward was a Republican. He proposed the text you just quoted at The Lincoln's bidding in late December 1860.
The Crittenden proposals predate the Seward proposals. During the first months of 1861 there were compromise proposals flying left and right. Some build upon others, and it appears that Seward took the amendment idea from Crittenden since his proposals came first. Of course then Seward added the proposals for jury trials for fugitive slaves and it all blew up.
That is not the issue. You are still incorrectly citing the Seward proposal as the Crittenden one. This is likely because they appeared near each other in the comittee reports and are almost always reproduced along side each other in historical anthologies. Seward entered his proposal in late Dec. 1860 before the committee as an alternative to Crittenden. Several other senators did the same thing.
The language of Seward's proposal came from Lincoln as is indicated by Seward's December 26th letter to the president elect.
Well, no it didn't. Galveston was the only Texas port that did much in the way of any sort of exports prior to the war. What railroad system there was in Texas funneled goods to Galveston. So the 68,000 bales exported out of Galveston represented virtually all of the Texas cotton production and that doesn't seem to be much of a reason to base a campaign on.
Much to the contrary. Had Sabine Pass not halted the invasion from the gulf, there would have been no Red River campaign.
And had either campaign been wildly successful it still wouldn't have brought about the southern defeat any earlier.
You are continuing in fallacy with the port of entry/exit concept. Many parts of east Texas are in closer proximity to Beaumont/Port Arthur and to Louisiana than they are to Galveston. They shipped out by way of those ports and the Mississippi. 1859 also says nothing of 1864 when cotton had been halted elsewhere by the war but continued in production in Texas where it was unimpeded. That is why Galveston became a blockade runner haven in 1864-65. They were recieving runners almost once a week during some of those months. The Lincoln knew this and, in 1864, tried to invade Texas with a massive army and fleet from the northeast.
Sure it would have. The last part of the confederacy to fall was Texas. They did not surrender until June 1865.
Ridiculous waltrot. Lincoln himself said that he did not want to give rights to all, but only to some. The ones he deemed to be "very intelligent" and to the ones who served in his military. Most in his party wanted to grant full rights to blacks, without his type of exclusionary and 'non-hereditary' conditions. He made his statements to separate himself from them and clarify that he did not want full rights for blacks as American citizens.
Lincoln was seeing what people --would-- accept. He used this technique throughout his presidency.
Once again your fantasy is dependent upon your bizarre belief that Lincoln never meant what he wrote or said, and that it always meant something else. You consider Mr. Lincoln to be "DIShonest Abe", a pathological liar incapable of either writing or speaking what he really meant. As Lincoln once 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.
Follow your idea to its conclusion. All 179,000 black union soldiers become voters. The war ends. Then what?
Based on the conditional and exclusionary ideas of black suffrage that he professed days before his death, their children would either have to join the army or pass black "intelligence" tests to earn full rights. He would have created an entire subclass of secondary citizens at the very time many or most in his party wanted to grant full rights to blacks. He was opposing their desire to give blacks full rights when he made those statements. He was opposing the very idea you try to give him credit for.
Are no more allowed to become voters? Except maybe the very intelligent?
Based on what he said they could join the military. His political opponents wanted full unconditional rights for blacks, unlike Lincoln, and they made sure Lincoln's exclusionary and conditional idea of black suffrage was outlawed.
That sure doesn't keep whites from voting.
You are only pointing out that Lincoln's wish to grant rights to "the very intelligent" blacks clearly shows that he believed it took the very 'best' black man to equal any white.
Lincoln was clearly clearing the way for equal rights for blacks.
LOL - Lincoln was clearly separating himself from those that wanted to grant full rights to blacks by proclaiming his personal view that full rights should only be given to "the very intelligent" blacks, and those that served in his military.
We have a conflict in information from our respective sources then.
Loss of Sabine would have brought about an earlier collapse would it?
It's very likely. Had Sabine been lost, the invasion force would have landed and probably advanced across Texas by 1864. It would have fallen by Lee's surrender instead of surrendering on its own several months later. The south would have also been deprived of blockade runners after Mobile fell in 1864. The north would also have never needed the Red River campaign, which diverted many troops and ships away from the war elsewhere. So in effect, a 40 man garrison at an earthen fort significantly altered the time and course of the war.
LOL - I have not offered "interpretations", I have offered Lincoln's own words to explain Lincoln's own position. The record is there for all to view, and does not require "interpretations", which are the tools of apologists and revisionist fantasy makers like Jaffa and his deranged ilk. They predicate most of their "interpretations" on the belief that Lincoln never meant what he said or wrote, and that it really meant something else. As Lincoln himself once said, "I fear explanations explanatory of things explained". That's what the cultists do, they offer explanations explanatory of things explained. Strange how it never occurs to them that maybe Lincoln meant what he wrote and said. Instead, they insist that he was some sort of pathological liar incapable of writing or speaking what he really meant. Study history, not "historians".
I thought President Lincoln went to Sabine Pass to steal all the cotton and now you're talking about him going to Galveston to stop the blockade runners. One would think that if it had all been about cotton he would have invaded earlier.
If that had been its purpose. More likely it was to deny the confederacy the use of even a small port.
The south would have also been deprived of blockade runners after Mobile fell in 1864.
At best the blockade runners going to Texas could barely keep Kirby Smith supplied. Virtually nothing that was landed there could have made it east, especially after Vickburg was cut in 1863. There were no railroads connecting Texas with any part of the Confederacy.
So in effect, a 40 man garrison at an earthen fort significantly altered the time and course of the war.
Pure conjecture on your part. Maybe it did and maybe it didn't, we'll never know for sure.
True, but given the wording it is possible, maybe even likely, that he got the idea from Crittenden who was the first to propose such an amendment. Are you suggesting that President-elect Lincoln influenced Crittenden, too?
We'll never really know if President Lincoln had made his proposal as a way of getting the idea of black sufferage started, with expanded sufferage to follow, or whether he really meant for it to be restricted to only some blacks. After all it was hardly universal in the Northern states in 1865, and perhaps President Lincoln saw Louisiana as the place to start. He must have thought that Governor Halm might be open to the idea, perhaps since of the confederate states Louisiana had the third largest percentage of free blacks prior to the war. But that is speculation. Instead he was assassinated and black sufferage for all was severely restricted by the southern state governments for another 100 years.
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.