Quote:So you're trying to pretend that a guy who talked at length about the Union prisoners in Andersonville, GA but didn't mention at all the Confederate prisoners Elmira, N.Y. wasn't biased? How about no mention of the Corwin Amendment? Doesn't even bother to mention the freed black slaves living in the CSA during the war?
Ken Burns is far from an objective review of the Civil War, he focused on specific letters and events to the picture he wanted to display. It was well done, I've seen the documentary, it's been a while but there was plenty he left out that didn't coincide with the picture he was painting.
I find it hilarious you're going to lecture me on being closed minded when you've bought the white washed version of the entire even hook line and sinker.
While it is correct that there were some free blacks living in the South during the time of the Civil War, and even a few who served with the army of the CSA (1st Louisiana Native Guard anyone?), there was still a lot of discrimination against colored people in the South, and even the few blacks who did serve were just there primarily for non-combat and ceremonial roles. That's not to say that the North was any better in regards to racial discrimination and civil rights.
The Corwin Amendment does indeed propose to allow States to regulate slavery; and it was even supported by Lincoln, but the South decided to secede; thereby leaving the amendment to rot and be a forgotten (but certainly a very crucial and important) piece of American history. That's one of those "boneheaded" decisions by the South that I was talking about earlier. Notice my use of the 3rd person singular present in the word "does", as the Corwin Amendment technically still exists. But it has never been fully ratified by all of the States. And it obviously never will be ratified.
You can't expect every historian or documentary to include every fact about a certain event. The North won the war and since history is always written by the victor; facts and other key events are either erased from history so as not to vindicate the other side, or they're misinterpreted and turned into propaganda.
http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2013/02/18/t...ard-albert
Quote:Spoken by the guy propagating Lost Cause Revisionism that's pretty funny.
Here's a text from the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Source: St. Olaf College.
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/fitz/COURSES/DEBATES.htm
Here are a few interesting quotes:
"(quoting the Bible): "'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South."
LINCOLN: "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 in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
LINCOLN: ". . .I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgement, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium;">I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the Negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects--certainly not in color, perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without the leave of any body else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium;">
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium;">
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium;">To summarize: Lincoln thinks that slavery is an institution that is both morally and politically wrong. But he understands the differences over the issues and thinks that whites and non-whites will never be able to truly get along. Which in a way, is still true today with racial incidents such as Ferguson and New York demonstrating that there is still a lot of bias and tension that exists. Originally, he didn't oppose any interference with a State's right to have slavery, but that changed by 1863. Sorry for the long post, but I just had to make my points clear to everyone participating in this discussion. Maybe this might make everyone in here realize that the Civil War and slavery both had a lot of grey in-between them.