Lincoln – American History to 1877

April 29, 2014

A Different Outcome

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The movie Confederate States of America was extremely interesting to watch. The movie started out with typical Southern music playing, and I knew I was in for an extremely biased and racist movie. That is just my perception though, because I am used to way of life we live now. If the Confederates won, we all would probably have had different thoughts regarding slavery today.

One big thing that struck me was the portrayal of Lincoln. Lincoln to us is one of the best presidents, who won the Civil War, brought the Union back together, and ended slavery. He is very well respected, and even called “Honest Abe.” In this movie, it is the opposite. Lincoln is seen as a coward, losing the war, and tries to escape to Canada through Harriet Tubman. He is disguised in blackface, and when he is caught, pretends to be a slave. He becomes a prisoner of war, and is sent to Canada for exile. This perception of him really irked me because even if he did lose, I don’t think he would have done all of this. I think Lincoln should have gotten more respect than this portrayal.

Another interesting part of this movie was that they outlawed every religion except Christianity(included Catholicism) and wanted the Jews to leave. This strictly goes against the right to have freedom of religion, and if this actually happened, would lead to less diversity today. America is prided on the fact that it welcomes all different types of people who practice different religions, and I believe there is beauty in that. I am a Christian, but I do not believe that it should be the national religion. That is almost like taking a step towards communism.

Another important difference was the aggressive nature of the military. In this movie, the C.S.A. believed strongly in manifest destiny, and wanted to expand their empire into Mexico, Cuba, and other Caribbean islands. Also, they bombed Japan first, and basically started a war. Everything was on the offensive in this movie depiction, which I don’t think is right. They also had a Cold War with Canada, and even created a wall. They partially agreed with the Nazis, and did not fight against them.

Because of all these events that occurred, I believe if the Confederates won the war, America would have never progressed. It was 1980, and woman still did not have the right to vote. Slavery was still widespread, and Canada was beating America out in many different ways. If the Union had not won, I do believe that America would not have been seen as the good guys, like we are today. We would still be a racist, slave filled society that is caught up in the past, and not progressing towards the future. As my classmate said “We see the Civil War today as the war that freed the slaves, an almost necessary evil that killed hundreds of thousands but ended the system of slavery.” The thing is, if the Confederates won, would all those deaths be worth it? Nothing really changed, and the system was back to its primitive ways.

April 28, 2014

The American Civil War Not Initially an Abolitionist War

In chapter 15 of Inhuman Bondage, Davis discusses the death and destruction the American Civil War caused, providing the reader with statistics that are very difficult to grasp. As the author of “A Bloody War” mentions, “both sides of the war lost so many men, with the number of casualties over 600,000.” Poorly maintained prisoner-of-war camps, unwarranted executions of these prisoners, and warfare-related casualties all contributed to these staggering numbers and Davis does a great job of explaining that neither side deserved more blame than the other; the Civil War was one of especial deep-seated hatred and both sides were willing to do whatever it took to win the war. Nevertheless, Davis reiterates the claims of many American historians and abolitionists by maintaining that the Civil War was a “necessary and good war.” In addition to resulting in the emancipation of four million slaves, he explains that “the war led to the nation’s first civil rights legislation and to constitutional amendments that extended to blacks full citizenship and equality before the law as well as the right to vote (for adult black males).”

However, as Davis mentions, the American Civil War was not always an “abolitionist war.” He notes that in 1862, Washington politicians and even Lincoln himself, knew that fighting this kind of war would be impossible as “any radical policy against slavery would alienate not only Unionists in the secessionist South but also supporters of the Union in the absolutely crucial slaveholding border states.” In fact, when General Fremont proclaimed the emancipation of slaves in Missouri, Lincoln overruled this order in order to protect his executive authority and more importantly, to appeal to the border states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and eventually West Virginia. Lincoln explained why he believed it was necessary to maintain the support of the border states early in the war: “I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we can not hold Missouri, nor, I think, Maryland. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. We would as well consent to separation at once, including the surrender of this capitol.” Although Lincoln identified slavery as the cause of the nation’s problems at this time, it is no wonder why he adopted a more conservative stance early in the war – there was no chance of the Union winning an abolitionist war.

Eventually, Lincoln became more radical and on January 1, 1863, publicly issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which successfully liberated all slaves in the states that were still in rebellion. Davis ultimately does a wonderful job at once again revealing the complexities that are rarely talked about in American history. He presents the issues Lincoln was dealing with and successfully explains the president’s hesitancy at making the Civil War an abolitionist war in the first couple years of the conflict. My only complaint with Davis’ account is the lack of clarity he exhibits when describing the turning point in Lincoln’s agenda. Davis explains that Lincoln came to the conclusion “that it was a military necessity absolutely essential to the salvation of the Union” to free the slaves on July 13, 1862, but in my opinion, he does not do it clearly enough.

April 22, 2014

The Civil War’s More Immediate Causes

While past readings of The Rise of American Democracy have shed light on some of the long-term causes of the Civil War, in chapters 23-25, Wilentz gives us the war’s more immediate political origins. As Emma alludes to in her post, Lincoln lost the 1858 Illinois senate election to his political rival, Democrat Stephen Douglas. Although Wilentz highlights many events as contributing factors to the Civil War, he states that the most influential of these events was Lincoln’s 1858 loss to Douglas.

Central to each candidate’s campaign was what came to be know as the Lincoln-Douglas debates, a series of seven debates held throughout the state which gave the public a chance to see firsthand what each man stood for. Wilentz notes that Douglas’s campaign was ultimately centered on the idea that an individual territory should have the right to decide whether it shall be a free or slave state. Contrasting this stance, Lincoln ran his campaign on the idea that at its most basic form, slavery should be viewed as an issue of morality. In quoting one of his speeches, Wilentz notes Lincoln’s distinction between freedom and slavery, “The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings…It is the same spirit that says, ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it’”(417). Despite losing the election based on the Electoral College’s tally, Lincoln won the election’s popular vote, exhibiting that his framing the issue of slavery as an ethical one resonated with the people of Illinois.

Wilentz goes on to say that even with Lincoln’s loss, the Republican Party outside of Illinois was victorious during the 1858 elections (419). He asserts that the ground made up by the Republican Party in 1858 created favorable conditions for Lincoln’s campaign for the presidency two years later. Ultimately, Lincoln shaped slavery as an issue of morals, a belief that garnered his party political influence and created a defined campaign platform for his presidential candidacy. Whether he was willing to admit it or not, Wilentz shows how Lincoln’s strategy surrounding slavery was the tipping point that eventually pitted the North and the South against each other once and for all.

April 22, 2014

The Powder Keg of the Civil War

Chapters 23-25 in The Rise of American Democracy summarize what is happening in America right before the Civil War. Like my classmate said, Wilenz focuses on the political aspects leading up to the war instead of the battles themselves. This is very different than anything I have learned, because I did not know all of the specific details. I just thought that the South wanted slavery, and the North did not, but it actually was a lot more complicated than that.

During this time, many attempts at compromise were made, but none were effective. One big controversial topic during this time frame was the Dred Scott decision. He was a slave who traveled to a free territory, so he thought he should be free. It was decided that he was not a citizen, and he was not free. This decision escalated the sectional tensions throughout the United States. Wilenz says, “For antislavery northerners, the decision proved that the entire branch of the federal government had fallen into the Slave Power’s clutches.” (397) In Kansas, fighting between pro-slavery and antislavery people broke out, causing mayhem. Also, there was a financial panic in the late summer and fall of 1957 caused by “a vast expansion of industrial development and railroad construction, heavily funded by foreign investors, was followed by a sudden sell-off of American securities abroad driven by rising interest rates, which depressed the value of American stocks and bonds.” (402) Also at this time, many immigrants were flooded into America, and they were treated very poorly because they were poor and Catholic.

One important aspect throughout all of this was sectionalism. Some many different events created a huge divided in the United States, which I believe leaded to the Civil War. Each side thought their way of life was more successful, and Wilenz definitely supports that throughout these chapters. “On certain essentials, most slaveholders could agree: slavery created an economy, society, and polity superior to the crass and cutthroat North.” (409)

Lincoln was also introduced in these chapters. It is interesting to me how he lost to Douglas in the Senate race, but would end up beating him for the presidency. He disliked slavery, and when he was elected president, the South took action. They began to secede, and quickly. Buchanan said “that secession over Lincoln’ selection was conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government.” (444)

As I read these chapters, I could not help but detect some bias regarding the North as morally correct. Wilenz seemed to make the South seem like the bad guy, and the North seem like the good guy. This said, Wilenz also speaks highly of Lincoln. I don’t recall him ever saying anything negative about him. Even though I do agree with this viewpoint, I think Wilenz should have made it more impartial.