Documentary Review: Civil War 360: Fight for Freedom

This is a presentation from Smithsonian Channel and this episode features Dennis Haysbert telling not only of his ancestors, but the history of slavery, and the Civil War from the perspective of an African American.  This presentation tells many different stories.  Among other things it tells where the term "Sold down the River" came from.  Slaves were considered property, not people.  In fact, the value of slaves was about $3 billion, which was an incredible amount of money at the time, worth more than all the real estate of the area.  "Being sold down the river" referred to being sold south, where the work was usually more grueling, the life expectancy much shorter, and families almost always separated.  It was against the law to teach a slave to read.  The thought was if a slave could read then he would want more.  A great fear of those living in the South was a slave revolt.  Nat Turner had actually lead a revolt, and 50 citizens were killed.  Of course 200 blacks were killed in retribution, but the South lived in fear.  Many of the African Americans risked so much.  Harriet Tubman risked her own self, spying for the Union, and directing the Union men on some occasions in their pursuit of the enemy.  This movie points out how the Ciivil War was sandwiched between two illegal events, the attack on Harpers Ferry, and the assassination of President Lincoln.  John Wilkes Booth was at the first event, and perpetrated the second.
This movie of course also talked about how General Ben Butler first refused to return runaway slaves, saying they were contraband of war.  In the end President Lincoln backed him.  It describes the Emancipation Proclamation, and lastly talks about Black troops.  The risk for Black troops was much greater, because the Confederacy did not take them prisoner, but killed them.  A Black Soldier had to be better than the rest.  There was prejudice against them.  They received less pay for the same work.

Book Review: Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865

Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865, by: James Oakes, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 2013. 

This is a fascinating book about the progression towards the liberation of the slaves.  The basic story we have is that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after the Union achieved a victory of sorts at  Antietam, and then the slaves were free.  Lincoln went on to get the thirteenth amendment through congress, which was eventually accepted by the states.  Some of the former Confederate States accepted it as it was now the law of the land, or less than full hardy, but in the end, slavery was no more. 

However, the truth is that the emancipation of the slaves was a gradual process. Without the secession of the Southern States, it probably would have taken much longer, but the war gave the government, and Abraham Lincoln and the Republican party a reason to emancipate the slaves.  First, slaves escaped to the Union lines, and eventual the policy became, the army would not return slaves would could be conscripted to help the Southern cause, but would be employed to help the North.  Also of immediate import was the ending of the Fugitive Slave Act with regards to those states that had seceded.  The agreement was no longer binding with those states who were no longer under the Constitution. 

The policy as such lead to people to self emancipate, but running to the army, or by running to free states.  When the Union invaded Louisiana, this again lead to slaves running to Union lines. 

Federal policy progressed slowly.  Next is was slaves from seceded states who were no longer returned, rather than just those whose masters fought for the rebel cause or used the slaves for the rebel cause.  The emancipation proclamation was President Lincoln taking advantage of the powers given him by the war powers Act which basically asked for a proclamation. 

The Emancipation Proclamation did two things, emancipated those slaves in Union controlled territory from seceded states.  It also allowed for former slaves to fight for the army, which had not been done to this point, January 1, 1835. over 180,000 would fight for the Union.  At the end of the war the accounted for 20 percent of the soldiers in arms.

However, this proclamation wasn’t enough.  Slaves in border states still loyal to the Union were not freed.  It was hoped these states would abolish slavery on their own, but this was not happening and when it did happen, the process was slow.  Louisiana and West Virginia were progressing to abolish slavery, and other states were coming along like Missouri; however Kentucky and Delaware were having none of it. 

A broader approach was needed.  This was found in an amendment to the Constitution—which was rare to this point in time.  In fact, the first attempt failed in the congress.  However, after the election, but before the new congressmen came into office (the election had been a Republican success and passage was assured after the new congress was sworn in.)  However they wanted passage as soon as possible, and before the end of the war, which may change people’s ideas about the need for the amendment. 

The Democratic argument against emancipation was two-fold, the government should not interfere with property rights; property in men in this case.  The second was the racist argument, the freed slaves were inferior and would be a burden upon themselves and other people without masters to care for them.  On the other hand, the Republicans argued that there was no such thing as property in people, or shouldn’t be.  They also argued that free people would find a way to contribute to society. 

For everyone’s benefit, the Republicans prevailed and Freedom was the law, all across the land.  At this time, equal rights should have been the next step.  However, after Lincoln was killed, this step was not taken, and our nation still wallowed in racial segregation and lack of voting and other basic rights for many years.

Documentary Review: Lincoln: Man or Myth: Investigating History

This is a series produced by the History Channel: Investigating History.  In this episode the investigate Abraham Lincoln.  It shows several different aspects of Lincoln.  Lincoln was photographed over 120 times, which was a lot it that day.  They present two photos which also are suppose to be Lincoln, and follow the evidence which point to one (Hoffman portrait) definitely being Lincoln and the other (Kaplan photograph) likely. 
The documentary then looks at the argument of Lerone Bennett Jr. saying the Abraham Lincoln was not an emancipator, but rather a racist.  He first put forth his argument during the Civil Rights era, and then later wrote a book with the theme.  He makes his argument because the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the states under Confederate control.  The thirteenth amendment became law after Lincoln was dead.  A previous documentary blamed his assassination on a speech he gave a few days before, asking for the right to vote for all citizens, including African Americans.  I think Mr. Bennett has gotten this one wrong, most likely not trying to give credit where it is due to a Republican.  The issue here was one of politics.  Lincoln had to get elected to be able to make changes, and some of Lincoln's statements evolved, or were made of political necessity.
The Bixby letter is then reviewed.  Was it written by Lincoln, or his press secretary.  They don't answer this question.
One thin is for certain.  The log cabin on display where Lincoln was born, is not the log cabin that was there when he was born.  However it is a log cabin, and is on display at the place where Lincoln was born in a log cabin. 

Book Review: A Savage Thunder: Antietam and the Bloody Road to Freedom

Jim Murphy, two-time winner of the Newbury Award wrote this book.  It is very engaging.  Murphy studied numerous accounts of the battle, and puts together this hour by hour history of the battle.  He starts with events happening the days before, the Confederate attack of Harper's Ferry, the Union finding of the Confederate plans, and the rush to a defensible position, before the Union Army can take advantage of the plans.  The narrative is peppered with first person accounts of the battle.  He makes it a point to talk about the involvement of women in the battle, as well as African American involvement.
The most fascinating part is the narrative.  The author has a way to draw you into the history.  And even though he doesn't hold back talking about the blood and the loss of life and limbs, his storytelling is superb, and the story is not overwhelmed by this, the bloodiest day in American history.  There are maps to help with the story telling.  I would have liked one more map of the Burnside attack of the bridge. 
The other goal of the author was to tell of the relationship between this battle and the Emancipation Proclamation.  President Lincoln had already written the proclamation, but was waiting for the right opportunity to release it.  He found in this battle that opportunity, and changed the leanings of most of the European Nations as a result, which were leaning towards recognizing the Confederacy but after could not bring themselves to support slavery, which is the difference the proclamation made.
I very much enjoyed this book.  Great narrative, great pictures, and great maps.  The author also peppers the story with poetry from the era, and this also adds to the character of the book.