In my public speaking class in college we had to deliver a speech in front of the class. This was the speech I chose to deliver. This was in the Philippines. I still can recite the last few lines 50 years later and my wife is always surprised whenever this speech is on TV as I say the words just before Lincoln does: With malice towards none......
@@nickucera205 Not the North vs. South one? I've seen a clip there where his voice was much deeper. If you can tell me which one it is I'll try to catch it, but Holbrook has done it a lot, so it's a lot to sort through.
When did he have a beard that short and how does anyone know what his voice sounded like and I have NEVER seen a photo of him wearing specs .I question the legitimacy of this as it seems a lot of artistic liberties were taken.
I disagree. Many may forget Barack Obama is one of the most well educated & intelligent men to hold the highest office in the US. After graduation from two of the top universities in America, he spent twelve years as an instructor in constitutional law & worked as a civil rights attorney,. He embodies what Lincoln said 144 years before Obama became POTUS. His statement of appreciation of Lincoln's speech is apt.
@@dbyers3897 Tbh, I would rather have Obama again instead of Biden xD. At least the way he was back then. It's like they say, Americans always see former presidents as being more noble in hindsight. Sadly it means they are just getting worse.
@@chrisflaherty8991 Whoosh. This is a roughly 5 hrs long cinematic mini series. The commentary is not randomly put in interrupting anything. It is part of the film's creative flavor and integral to the final product, which can be viewed on History and, if still there, Prime. Also, "Obama was undermined by his divisiveness, unlike Lincoln." Lol, wtf? Thank god we destroyed your man by over 7 million votes then utterly rekt your prophesized "red wave." Enjoy the dozens of felony charges, by the way. We always told ya we'd punish you for what you've done to the country. Turns out it wasn't a bluff after all. ;)
@@theyowiehunters7698 Clue, junior. You haven't punished anyone, nor will you. I'll enjoy seeing Biden squirm like the insignificant worm he is, him and his coke head son.
Hard to decide if Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural presentation or his Gettysburg address is the best of American, focused, inspirational, thoughtful discourse.
Oh, we remember it, like all profound messages--periodically, and most often selectively. In fairness, daily life is an endless scrum, and just getting through it occupies most of our attention. But look who's commenting on this. A President of the United States. Barack Obama. He's forgotten none of it, but he, unlike Lincoln, served two terms. He's still very much alive. His Vice-President is President now, and he's no Andrew Johnson. It's not like we've learned and accomplished nothing since the Second Inaugural. But those who wait for perfection wait forever. Lincoln knew that, worked with what he had to hand, as best he could, to help as many as he could. "In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.” That's what we most need to learn from him. In all ages. Not lofty profundity, moving as it can be. The wily pragmatism that lay behind it. Lincoln's speeches are a marvel of the world--but they were not the most important tool in his kit. What he did behind the scenes mattered far more. Like lining up support in enough states to make sure the 13th Amendment would be ratified. Like summoning Frederick Douglass to his office, to ask him to work on getting the enslaved in Confederate territory to head for the Union lines, and those who were able and willing to enlist in the Union cause. We may never see his equal again. But really, a society that can only move forward when an Abraham Lincoln is there to guide it isn't long for this world. Because they come along so rarely, and are taken from us prematurely so often. If we want to honor them--emulate them. Learn from them. Words always matter less than deeds.
The lack of recordings of Lincoln in particular is maddening. The recording device is so simple it could have been invented much much earlier than Edison did. His engineers got it right in the first try
@@jadedbrad It was many years prior, by a Frenchman, but the man who invented did not realize that those recordings could be played back until much later. He died before finishing the job.
I heard Lincoln had a high-pitched voice, yet I could never imagine this because of all the Disney films in which his voice is deep. In this rendition, though, I see how a high-pitched voice could have been compatible with what I have seen in the photos and in the words.
Literally same, not just Disney but most media think of a deep voice as the only one to be worthy of a leader. But this rendition of Lincoln is my favorite. His voice fits his face, there is power in his voice and an empathetic touch too. A stressed out voice, pleading for justice. I'd be friends with someone like Lincoln.
The best description we have of Lincoln's voice is that it was higher pitched, based on recollections of those who heard his speeches. Who knows? Without amplification, our voices tend to be higher when we have to shout. Of course, all that really matters is the power of Lincoln's words.
Lincoln created the largest system of Government. Having served this country let us not forget those who has born the battle, his widow and his orphan.
The new political party members all deserve an equal shout out. 12 men who decided enough, formed the republican mission statements chose a cabdidate wisely, and with the help of the Bible and Ben Franklins autobiography began writing the speeches that gave power top the movement. And confidence to stand up for rightiousness to the people.
This is a History Channel show called Abraham Lincoln. There's also a Washington, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, and maybe more by the same director. They all have in common fantastic casting and a half movie, half documentary style of presentation. I recommend them all.
@@MrAschiff I disagree. He looks a lot like him, just full Black rather than mulatto. To cast a mulatto would mean no Black characters of great import, which considering this subject matter would be foolish. The other issue is, nobody looks exactly like Frederick Douglass except for Frederick Douglass. Hard to perfectly emulate the most handsome, visually striking man in American history. P.S.: Repugs triggered your snowflake-in-chief turned out to be a one-term dumpster fire failed presidency? And then that whole "red wave" thing you were all crooning about... Oops. Warnock sends his regards, by the way. ;)
Obama has such a deep and profound understanding of Lincoln. It’s really cool that one of our best modern day presidents has such a reverence for our greatest president.
Greatest speech ever given by a world leader in my humble opinion. It sounds like a perfect harmonizing of biblical themes with American themes and themes from the Bhagavad Gita. Not longer after this extraordinary speech he would have a dream in which he saw a coffin in the Whitehouse and saw people mourning over it. He asked "who has died?" and an officer said "The president has died by an assassins bullet". And then shortly after that dream he would be shot by an assassins bullet.... on Good Friday.
He had a dream that he was going to die very shortly before he was assassinated, and he was shot on Good Friday. "Cometh the Hour, cometh the Man" indeed.
Republicans are fixated on the idea that their party is connected to the party of President Lincoln, whose party also bore the name Republican. During every election season, they keep evoking the hallowed connection again saying “the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln.” Republicans want to imagine that there is a grand tradition between the Republican Party of the Reagan era and Abraham Lincoln’s federal interventionist party of 1861. Today’s Republicans, with their passion for states’ rights, their protection of the white supremacist segments of American society, their aversion to ethical federal pro action, have more ideological connections with the slaveholding southern Democrats of the 1860s than they do with Lincoln’s party. Lincoln’s administration and its legacy brought welfare to a persecuted and disadvantaged minority. It also issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing constitutional rights for every citizen, Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing suffrage, and Freedman’s Bureau to aid newly freed African Americans.
Abraham Lincoln is among the very best president's ever... I'd include Washington, made a rag tag army into a fighting force to rival Britain's military...and as president, started the very foundations of our government
Yeah...save the fact George Washington himself was a slave owner, 123 to be exact. The man formed the basis of the United States, but the man was a lesser individual in comparison to that of Lincoln himself. George Washington will always be second to that of Lincoln for all time.
I have one criticism of the performance. Lincoln did not memorize the speech and had no teleprompter. Photos show that he had paper with him while delivering the speech. So the actor here should have periodically been referring to his notes.
The only other actor I’ve seen do an accurate Lincoln voice was Daniel Day Lewis. I can’t decide which is better, but also, props to this guy for not just impersonating Daniel Day Lewis’s impersonation
We will never know who did the more accurate portrayal because none of us can know what Lincoln actually sounded like. But DDL is probably the greatest actor of his generation, and his portrayal of lincoln is a tour de force, so I'm inclined to give the title to him. But this actor here still did an excellent job and deserves all the credit for doing so.
I would love to hear recited aloud the entire speech. I just read it; all of it is very moving. And, this struck me as I finished reading John Meacham's great book "And There Was LIght"--as it had come to me when I was an undergraduate in history, almost 60 years ago, that the US Civil War was a continuation of our Revolutionary War--that the Civil War did not finish resolving the contradictions inherent in the social make-up of the 13 colonies and in our Constitution. Our Revolutionary/Civil War has still not ended. I wonder will it ever? Or will too many of our citizens continue to adhere to the anti-Christian beliefs in white supremacy and in the right of some human beings to rule with absolute authority over others?
As a foreigner to the US, it seems to me that your war would have ended naturally long ago, if certain people with malicious intent would not keep stoking it -- creating problems where there are none, exaggerating and worsening existing problems, and inciting racial hatred and division where it had not been an issue in decades.
Well, the aim of that was to create an American Republic. But as Reagan warned us, that is a struggle that may never end. since tyranny is what the leadership so often prefers
I don't know about the inaugurations, but actually the Gettysburg Address was famously hard to hear. Some people didn't even know it had started til it was over ! I suppose a crowd back then would be more silent and listen harder. And probably go and pick up a copy of the speech afterward (or even before, to follow along) somewhere. Just speculating.
@@loyevangelists ...even earlier than that: When Sherman marched to the sea through Georgia at the end of 1864, it was clear the Union was on the path to victory. By that point, the US Army was an unstoppable force.
@@frisco21 Agreed. By 1864 the only thing that could have prevented the North from winning was the people of the North loosing the will to continue the war. Their re-electing of Lincoln over McClellan proved that their heart was very much still in the war. They were determined to see the war through to victory and that insured the final and total defeat of the South.
I think he got the voice just right. It is said that he had a high pitched voice that carried well to the limits of a large crowd. Whether the accent is right, I do not know, The Gettesyburg speech was wonderful, This was more powerful,
He can be an excellent orator if he is passionate enough. His appearance at the White House Press Dinner or his appearances in Ukraine and among Ukrainian Refugees in Poland are proof enough of that (look them up). But never mind that. He is much more effective than many of those Presidents.
Of post war Presidents, Grant had a pleasant baritone voice but did not project well, Garfield was a great orator. as was Benjamin Harrison. and McKinley. Teddy Roosevelt was excellent and Wilson even better. If radio had been available to Wilson he might have carried the country with him. Coolidge was surprisingly good on the radio and as a platform speaker.. FDR was a genius on the radio.
Agreed completely, but in my view Lincoln is one of the greatest world leaders in all of human history, so it isn't surprising to me that we haven't seen someone like that in our lifetime.
The republican party was a child in Lincoln's time. It hadn't yet had time to decide what it wanted to be IF it ever grew up. And MAYBE it did reach adulthood at one point, but I think it's senile now.
Maybe read your own history. "At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power."
England abolished slavery in 1807 and freed the slaves in 1838. France in 1794. Spain in 1811. Netherlands, in 1863. It was time for the USA to join modernity. It would 50 years from 1865 until 1914, when America ascended to the leadership of the Free World.
The way the Dutch did meant all slaves had to work for ten more years as repayment, so effectively slavery did not end until 1873. Nevertheless, it was a good time to end it. Our only regret should be that we allowed it in the first place.
I disagree that Lincoln thought the Civil War was meant to free the slaves. He believed slavery was a State matter. However, the Framers had set up the government in such a way that slavery was put on the path of ultimate extinction. The South, however, thwarted the Framer's goals by attempting to extend slavery into the new Territories. Because they couldn't get their way, they illegally seceded from the Union. Lincoln certainly opposed slavery but he rightly did not think he had the authority under the Constitution to free the slaves. That's why he freed the slaves in the South only as a military necessity (but not in the border states). His Second Inaugural summarizes a lot of what he had been saying in speeches up to that time. However, it's remarkable -- and Mr. Obama recognized it -- that there's a biblical resonance in the reasoning of the Second Inaugural. However, Lincoln was not trying to transform the country into something else. He was trying to move the country back to the Constitution, back to the Framers, back to the meaning of the Declaration of Independence (as Martin Luther King Jr. saw). He also recommended charity for the losers, so that Northerners should not hate Southerners once the war was over.
I disagree with you. Certainly not in his later years. All you have to do is read the entire second inaugural address and the Emancipation Proclamation.
@@VernCrisler One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves not distributed generally over the union but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.
@@MrAschiff Yes, the war was aggravated by slavery. But the war was about preserving the Union, not freeing the slaves. Even the EP doesn't free all the slaves, only those in rebellious States.
T civil war was never about ending slavery, it was about keeping the country together, Lincoln was willing to have the status quo remain (meaning slavery) just to avoid a war.
Not exactly. Lincoln was willing to let slavery stay around, but not spread beyond its present limits. The slaveholding elite saw that as an act of aggression against their institution, that's why they still seceded right after his election victory. So, eventually keeping the union together and ending slavery became one and the same cause.
Well, the "status quo" was that under the Constitution slavery was a State matter, so the Federal government could have nothing to do with it. That means Lincoln was upholding the Constitution in his desire to avoid war over the issue. However, the new Territories out West were a different matter. They were under the supervision of the Federal government, and Lincoln objected to the spread of slavery to these new Territories. The South insisted on it, however, and fired on Fort Sumter to express their rejection of Lincoln's administration.
@@SU-vy8nb If you haven't yet, you should read Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, about Lincoln and the cabinet. She makes a very good case that his true beliefs never faltered, yet his innate political skill allowed him to move in the direction of abolishing slavery at the rate at which the country was ready, and no faster.
No, it's a History Channel show called Abraham Lincoln. There's also a Washington, Grant, Teddy Rosevelt, and maybe more by the same director. They all have in common fantastic casting and a half movie, half documentary style of presentation.
تحية لاعظم محرر في تاريخ الانسانيه٠٠لمن حرر العبيد حقا٠٠وقاتل وقتل في سبيل تحريرهم ٠٠انني عندما أتصفح الكتب السماوية للديانات الثلاثه لم أجد نصا فيها أو نبيا من انبياءها ٠٠ من حرم ان يستبعد الإنسان اخوه الانسان٠٠لابل ذهبت بعض الديانات إلى اعتبار العبيد والجواري بمثابة هدايا و سلع تباع وتشترى٠٠٠وثمنا يدفع من قبل المذنب بتحرير بعضا منها حتى يغفر الله ذنوبا ارتكبها ٠٠وكان البشر سلعة أو نقود ذهبيه يمتلكها الاغنياء يدفعونهاثمنا للتكفير عن ذنوبهم٠٠!!! انني واقسم على ذلك كنت أنظر إلى هذا الرجل نظرة احترام وتقدير منذو ان قرانا عنه ونحن صغار في كتب دراستنا ٠٠٠في الابتدائيه ٠٠٠٠و ان من يريد أن يعرف مقدارعظمة هذا الإنسان العظيم٠٠عليه ان يقرأ كتاب( كوخ العم توم)٠٠وبعدها يدلي برايه حول ما كتبت٠٠٠ انحني لك اكبارا وتقديرا ياايها الإنسان العظيم٠٠٠
Whenever someone brings up "the party of Lincoln" or "liberals are bad", they seem to ignore that Lincoln's party was liberal during that era. The parties started to change once FDR got into office. Conservativism is the desire to keep the ideals and policies of the past and present as is because they do not wish to change society whereas liberalism is the concept of changing and evolving to better society, even at the cost of giving up laws and policies that some may like at that time. The democratic south was very conservative with its desire to keep slavery as is, keep the states separate, and hold onto their old ideologies while the Republican party of the more liberal north desired to move away from that and were far more progressive for the time period.
People don't realize how liberal the GOP was at the time. I mean even slavery aside the homestead act was certainly a liberal endeavor. Then you look at the land grant college act, which basically gave land away to colleges and universities. Then they even pushed to make higher education more practical instead of the BS classical education that was common at the time. Then you can further even look at the national banking act which truly was a step in making a stronger national currency. In principle you just cannot imagine today's GOP taking any of these moves.
Republicans are fixated on the idea that their party is connected to the party of President Lincoln, whose party also bore the name Republican. During every election season, they keep evoking the hallowed connection again saying “the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln.” Republicans want to imagine that there is a grand tradition between the Republican Party of the Reagan era and Abraham Lincoln’s federal interventionist party of 1861. Today’s Republicans, with their passion for states’ rights, their protection of the white supremacist segments of American society, their aversion to ethical federal pro action, have more ideological connections with the slaveholding southern Democrats of the 1860s than they do with Lincoln’s party. Lincoln’s administration and its legacy brought welfare to a persecuted and disadvantaged minority. It also issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing constitutional rights for every citizen, Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing suffrage, and Freedman’s Bureau to aid newly freed African Americans.
as one of the only 46 men to ever be President of the United States, Obama has more in common with Lincoln than someone like you will ever have. also, as one of the even fewer men to give a second inaugural address, Obama is uniquely qualified to offer his opinions on the event, its meaning, and importance. the abomination is that people like you still existing in this nation and doing all you can to keep it from living up to its creeds and purpose. the abomination is that 159 years after the end of the Civil War we still have to deal with inequality, bigotry, prejudice, and the fallacy of white supremacy. Obama represents the ideals Lincoln fought for and for which his life was sadly taken.
This is classic rewriting of history. The Civil War was not fought to free the slaves, it was fought to preserve the Union, in fact Lincoln said as much in his first inaugural address in 1861. During the war he also said the South could keep slavery if they stayed in the Union. It should be noted that Maryland, Delaware and Kentucky all slave States were on the Union side during the war.
@@frisco21 my research has that Missouri was split with many men joining the Union side and many on the Confederate side. But it did not join the Confederacy.
@@robertnicholson1409 ...It is true that Missouri was closely divided in its loyalties, but a thin plurality of the populace was pro-Union, and so Missouri remained "loyal" to the Union --- sort of. But the important point is that the state did not secede and join the Confederacy. So, in your recitation you should have included Missouri alongside Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky.
I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, and commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, do hereby proclaim and declare that… it is my purpose upon the next meeting of Congress to again recommend… that the effort to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon the continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the government existing there, will be continued [emphasis added]. - Abraham Lincoln (preliminary draft, Emancipation Proclamation)
A position that was dropped, by the president who then authorised the recruitment of black troops into the Army. And then later put his political weight behind the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. Oh, and BTW: "Still, the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, will it be wiser to take it as it is and help to improve it, or to reject and disperse it! Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new State government! Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave State of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-State constitution, *giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man.* Their legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These 12,000 persons are thus fully committed to the Union and to perpetual freedom in the State -committed to the very things, and nearly all the things, the nation wants - and they ask the nation's recognition and its assistance to make good their committal. Now, if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We, in effect, say to the white man: You are worthless or worse; we will neither help you, nor be helped by you. To the blacks we say: This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how. If this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I have so far been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary, we recognize and sustain the new government of Louisiana, the converse of all this is made true. We encourage the hearts and nerve the arms of the 12,000 to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. *The colored man, too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it than by running backward over them!* Concede that the new government of Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than by smashing it." -- President Abraham Lincoln, final public address of 11 April, 1865
The Emancipation Proclamation: During the winter and spring 1861-1862, public support grew rapidly for the view that slavery must be abolished everywhere. Lincoln did not ignore the ever louder calls for decisive action.72 On June 19, he signed a law abolishing slavery in all the federal territories. At the same time, he was quietly preparing an even more dramatic measure. At a cabinet meeting on July 22, Lincoln read out the draft text of a document he had prepared - a proclamation that would give the Confederate states a hundred days to stop their “rebellion” upon threat of declaring all slaves in those states to be free. The President told his cabinet that he did not want advice on the merits of the proclamation itself - he had made up his mind about that, he said - but he would welcome suggestions about how best to implement the edict. For two days cabinet members debated the draft. Only two - Secretary of State William Seward and Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase, abolitionists who had challenged Lincoln for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination - agreed even in part with the proclamation’s contents. Seward persuaded the President not to issue it until after a Union military victory (of which so far there had been few), or otherwise it would appear “the last measure of an exhausted government, a cry for help.” Union General McClellan’s success on September 17 in holding off the forces of General Lee at Antietam provided a federal victory of sorts, and the waited-for opportunity. Five days later, Lincoln issued his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which included a favorable reference to colonization: I, Abraham Lincoln … do hereby proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States, and each of the states, and the people thereof … That it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress to again recommend the adoption of a practical measure tendering pecuniary aid to the free acceptance or rejection of all slave-states, so called, the people whereof may not be then be in rebellion against the United States, and which states, may then have voluntarily adopted, or thereafter may voluntarily adopt, immediate, or gradual abolishment of slavery within their respective limits; and that the effort to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon this continent, or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the Governments existing there, will be continued. Lincoln then went on to state that on January 1, 1863, all persons held as slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever, free … The edict then cited the law passed by Congress on March 13, 1862, which prohibited military personnel from returning escaped slaves, and the second Confiscation Act of July 1862. Proclamation Limitations: On New Year’s Day, 1863, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation.76 Contrary to what its title suggests, however, the presidential edict did not immediately free a single slave. It “freed” only slaves who were under Confederate control, and explicitly exempted slaves in Union-controlled territories, including federal-occupied areas of the Confederacy, West Virginia, and the four slave-holding states that remained in the Union. The Proclamation, Secretary Seward wryly commented, emancipated slaves where it could not reach them, and left them in bondage where it could have set them free. Moreover, because it was issued as a war measure, the Proclamation’s long-term validity was uncertain. Apparently any future President could simply revoke it. “The popular picture of Lincoln using a stroke of the pen to lift the shackles from the limbs of four million slaves is ludicrously false,” historian Allan Nevins has noted. ‘Military Necessity’ Lincoln himself specifically cited “military necessity” as his reason for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. After more than a year of combat, and in spite of its great advantages in industrial might and numbers, federal forces had still not succeeded in breaking the South. At this critical juncture of the war, the President apparently now hoped, a formal edict abolishing slavery in the Confederate states would strike a blow at the Confederacy’s ability to wage war by encouraging dissension, escapes, and possibly revolt among its large slave labor force. As the war progressed, Black labor had become ever more critical in the hard-pressed Confederacy. Blacks planted, cultivated and harvested the food that they then transported to the Confederate armies. Blacks raised and butchered the beef, pigs and chicken used to feed the Confederate troops. They wove the cloth and knitted the socks to clothe the grey-uniformed soldiers. As Union armies invaded the South, tearing up railroads and demolishing bridges, free Blacks and slaves repaired them. They toiled in the South’s factories, shipping yards, and mines. In 1862, the famous Tredegar iron works advertised for 1,000 slaves. In 1864, there were 4,301 blacks and 2,518 whites in the iron mines of the Confederate states east of the Mississippi. Blacks also served with the Confederate military forces as mechanics, teamsters, and common laborers. They cared for the sick and scrubbed the wounded in Confederate hospitals. Nearly all of the South’s military fortifications were constructed by Black laborers. Most of the cooks in the Confederate army were slaves. Of the 400 workers at the Naval arsenal in Selma, Alabama, in 1865, 310 were Blacks. Blacks served with crews of Confederate blockade-runners and stoked the firerooms of the South’s warships. Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the legendary cavalry commander, said in a postwar interview: “When I entered the army I took 47 Negroes into the army with me, and 45 of them were surrendered with me … These boys stayed with me, drove my teams, and better Confederates did not live.” On several occasions, Lincoln explained his reasons for issuing the Proclamation. On September 13, 1862, the day after the preliminary proclamation was issued, Lincoln met with a delegation of pro-abolitionist Christian ministers, and told them bluntly: “Understand, I raise no objections against it [slavery] on legal or constitutional grounds … I view the matter [emancipation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” To Salmon Chase, his Treasury Secretary, the President justified the Proclamations’s limits: “The original [preliminary] proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure,” he explained. “The exceptions were made because the military necessity did not apply to the exempted localities. Nor does that necessity apply to them now any more than it did then.” Horace Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, called upon the President to immediately and totally abolish slavery in an emphatic and prominently displayed editorial published August 20, 1862. Lincoln responded in a widely-quoted letter: My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union … Concern about growing sentiment in the North to end slavery, along with sharp criticism from prominent abolitionists, was apparently another motivating factor for the President. (Abolitionists even feared that the Confederate states might give up their struggle for independence before the January first deadline, and thus preserve the institution of slavery.) Lincoln assured Edward Stanly, a pro-slavery Southerner he had appointed as military governor of the occupied North Carolina coast, that “the proclamation had become a civil necessity to prevent the radicals from openly embarrassing the government in the conduct of the war.”
Abolishing Slavery A Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which would prohibit slavery throughout the United States, was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864. Because the House failed immediately to approve it with the necessary two-thirds majority vote, Lincoln, in his Annual Message of December 6, asked the House to reconsider it. On January 31, 1865, and with three votes to spare, the House approved it. By this time, slavery had already been abolished in Arkansas, Louisiana, Maryland and Missouri, and a similar move seemed imminent in Tennessee and Kentucky. On February 3, 1865, Lincoln and Secretary of State Seward met with a Confederate peace delegation that included Confederate Vice President Stephens. Lincoln told the delegation that he still favored compensation to owners of emancipated slaves. It had never been his intention, the President said, to interfere with slavery in the states; he had been driven to it by necessity. He believed that the people of the North and South were equally responsible for slavery. If hostilities ceased and the states voluntarily abolished slavery, he believed, the government would indemnify the owners to the extent, possibly, of $400 million. Although the conference was not fruitful, two days later Lincoln presented to his cabinet a proposal to appropriate $400 million for reimbursement to slave owners, providing hostilities stopped by April 1. (The cabinet unanimously rejected the proposal, which Lincoln then regretfully abandoned.) On April 9, General Lee surrendered his army to General Grant at Appomatox Courthouse, and by the end of May, all fighting had ceased. The Civil War was over. Lincoln’s Fear of ‘Race War’ A short time before his death on April 15, 1865, Lincoln met with General Benjamin F. Butler, who reported that the President spoke to him of “exporting” the Blacks. “But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free?,” Lincoln said. “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.” Along with a request to Butler to look into the question of how best to use “our very large navy” to send “the blacks away,” the President laid bare his fears for the future: If these black soldiers of ours go back to the South, I am afraid that they will be but little better off with their masters than they were before, and yet they will be free men. I fear a race war, and it will be at least a guerilla war because we have taught these men how to fight … There are plenty of men in the North who will furnish the negroes with arms if there is any oppression of them by their late masters. To his dying day, it appears, Lincoln did not believe that harmony between White and Black was feasible, and viewed resettlement of the Blacks as the preferable alternative to race conflict. ” … Although Lincoln believed in the destruction of slavery,” concludes Black historian Charles Wesley (in an article in The Journal of Negro History), “he desired the complete separation of the whites and blacks. Throughout his political career, Lincoln persisted in believing in the colonization of the Negro.” Frederick Douglass, a gifted African American writer and activist who knew Lincoln, characterized him in a speech delivered in 1876: In his interest, in his association, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of the white man. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people, to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. Allan Nevins, one of this century’s most prolific and acclaimed historians of US history, summed up Lincoln’s view of the complex issue of race, and his vision of America’s future: His conception ran beyond the mere liberation of four million colored folk; it implied a far-reaching alteration of American society, industry, and government. A gradual planned emancipation, a concomitant transportation of hundreds of thousands and perhaps even millions of people overseas, a careful governmental nursing of the new colonies, and a payment of unprecedented sums to the section thus deprived of its old labor supply - this scheme carried unprecedented implications. To put this into effect would immensely increase the power of the national government and widen its abilities. If even partially practicable, it would mean a long step toward rendering the American people homogeneous in color and race, a rapid stimulation of immigration to replace the workers exported, a greater world position for the republic, and a pervasive change in popular outlook and ideas. The attempt would do more to convert the unorganized country into an organized nation than anything yet planned. Impossible, and undesirable even if possible? - probably; but Lincoln continued to hold to his vision. For most Americans today, Lincoln’s plan to “solve” America’s vexing racial problem by resettling the Blacks in a foreign country probably seems bizarre and utterly impractical, if not outrageous and cruel. At the same time, though, and particularly when considered in the context of the terrible Civil War that cost so many lives, it is worth pondering just why and how such a far-fetched plan was ever able to win the support of a leader of the stature and wisdom of Abraham Lincoln.
@@frostazaththyrn1367 And yet: Colonisation was a position *that was dropped, by the president who then authorised the recruitment of black troops into the Army. And then later put his political weight behind the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.* Oh, and BTW: "Still, the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, will it be wiser to take it as it is and help to improve it, or to reject and disperse it! Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new State government! Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave State of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-State constitution, *giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man.* Their legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These 12,000 persons are thus fully committed to the Union and to perpetual freedom in the State -committed to the very things, and nearly all the things, the nation wants - and they ask the nation's recognition and its assistance to make good their committal. Now, if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We, in effect, say to the white man: You are worthless or worse; we will neither help you, nor be helped by you. To the blacks we say: This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how. If this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I have so far been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary, we recognize and sustain the new government of Louisiana, the converse of all this is made true. *We encourage the hearts and nerve the arms of the 12,000 to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. The colored man, too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it than by running backward over them!* Concede that the new government of Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than by smashing it." -- President Abraham Lincoln, final public address of 11 April, 1865 I'm sorry. You can keep pushing this broken narrative that Lincoln was all about colonising blacks out of the country all you like. The plain fact is that it was a position HE DROPPED. The speech regarding the reconstruction of the Louisiana state government makes plain that he shifted toward enfranchising freed blacks. I'm sorry if reality doesn't suit you, but that is not my problem.
@@frostazaththyrn1367 Oh, and BTW, it seems you forgot some of the things Fredrick Douglass said about Lincoln a bit further along in his speech from the cherry-picked quote you presented: "Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a preeminence in this worship at once full and supreme. First, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his stepchildren; children by adoption, children by forces of circumstances and necessity. To you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor. Instead of supplanting you at his altar, we would exhort you to build high his monuments; let them be of the most costly material, of the most cunning workmanship; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect; let their bases be upon solid rocks, and their summits lean against the unchanging blue, overhanging sky, and let them endure forever! But while in the abundance of your wealth, and in the fullness of your just and patriotic devotion, you do all this, we entreat you to despise not the humble offering we this day unveil to view; for while Abraham Lincoln saved for you a country, *he delivered us from a bondage, according to Jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.* I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. *His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.* Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. . . . The man who could say, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether,” gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go. Fellow-citizens, whatever else in this world may be partial, unjust, and uncertain, time, time! is impartial, just, and certain in its action. In the realm of mind, as well as in the realm of matter, it is a great worker, and often works wonders. *The honest and comprehensive statesman, clearly discerning the needs of his country, and earnestly endeavoring to do his whole duty, though covered and blistered with reproaches, may safely leave his course to the silent judgment of time.* Few great public men have ever been the victims of fiercer denunciation than Abraham Lincoln was during his administration. He was often wounded in the house of his friends. Reproaches came thick and fast upon him from within and from without, and from opposite quarters. He was assailed by Abolitionists; he was assailed by slaveholders; he was assailed by the men who were for peace at any price; he was assailed by those who were for a more vigorous prosecution of the war; he was assailed for not making the war an abolition war; and he was bitterly assailed for making the war an abolition war. . . . . . "Upon his inauguration as President of the United States, an office, even when assumed under the most favorable conditions, fitted to tax and strain the largest abilities, Abraham Lincoln was met by a tremendous crisis. He was called upon not merely to administer the Government, but to decide, in the face of terrible odds, the fate of the Republic. A formidable rebellion rose in his path before him; the Union was already practically dissolved; his country was torn and rent asunder at the center. Hostile armies were already organized against the Republic, armed with the munitions of war which the Republic had provided for its own defence. The tremendous question for him to decide was whether his country should survive the crisis and flourish, or be dismembered and perish. His predecessor in office had already decided the question in favor of national dismemberment, by denying to it the right of self-defence and self-preservation-a right which belongs to the meanest insect. Happily for the country, happily for you and for me, the judgment of James Buchanan, the patrician, was not the judgment of Abraham Lincoln, the plebeian. He brought his strong common sense, sharpened in the school of adversity, to bear upon the question. He did not hesitate, he did not doubt, he did not falter; but at once resolved that at whatever peril, at whatever cost, the union of the States should be preserved. A patriot himself, his faith was strong and unwavering in the patriotism of his countrymen. Timid men said before Mr. Lincoln’s inauguration, that we had seen the last President of the United States. A voice in influential quarters said, “Let the Union slide.” Some said that a Union maintained by the sword was worthless. Others said a rebellion of 8,000,000 cannot be suppressed; but in the midst of all this tumult and timidity, and against all this, *Abraham Lincoln was clear in his duty, and had an oath in heaven. He calmly and bravely heard the voice of doubt and fear all around him; but he had an oath in heaven, and there was not power enough on earth to make this honest boatman, back-woodsman, and broad-handed splitter of rails evade or violate that sacred oath. **_He had not been schooled in the ethics of slavery; his plain life had favored his love of truth. He had not been taught that treason and perjury were the proof of honor and honesty. His moral training was against his saying one thing when he meant another_** The trust that Abraham Lincoln had in himself and in the people was surprising and grand, but it was also enlightened and well founded. He knew the American people better than they knew themselves, and his truth was based upon this knowledge.* Fellow-citizens, the fourteenth day of April, 1865, of which this is the eleventh anniversary, is now and will ever remain a memorable day in the annals of this Republic. It was on the evening of this day, while a fierce and sanguinary rebellion was in the last stages of its desolating power; while its armies were broken and scattered before the invincible armies of Grant and Sherman; while a great nation, torn and rent by war, was already beginning to raise to the skies loud anthems of joy at the dawn of peace, it was startled, amazed, and overwhelmed by the crowning crime of slavery - the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. It was a new crime, a pure act of malice. No purpose of the rebellion was to be served by it. It was the simple gratification of a hell-black spirit of revenge. *But it has done good after all. It has filled the country with a deeper abhorrence of slavery and a deeper love for the great liberator."* housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/teagle/texts/frederick-douglass-speech-at-dedication-of-emancipation-memorial-1876/ teachingamericanhistory.org/document/oration-in-memory-of-abraham-lincoln/ Again, sorry if reality doesn't suit you.
I would agree that this might very well have been Lincoln's best speech. However, stating that the war was about ending slavery depends on your point-of-view. If you are from Pennsylvania, it would be seen as a war to end slavery, and yet, to many Northerners freeing the slaves was secondary to preserving the Union. When the Emancipation Proclamation became law, many Union officers resigned their commission because they refused to fight a war to end slavery. If, however, you are from South Carolina, the war has nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with independence and State's Rights. According to statistics, %75 of the White Southern population did NOT own slaves. How then, to them, can the US Civil War be about slavery?
States' Rights for what? There had been an attempt by SC to secede earlier, but none of the others joined, and a consideration nearly went through with the North during the war of 1812, but that's another story.
The Confederate leaders rebelled in order to protect their states "rights" to own people. Yes, most of the poor people who fought for the confederacy didn't own slaves and weren't directly fighting for slavery. But judging what the cause of a war is based on what the common solider is fighting for is not how history is done. The common infantry man fighting for the Nazi's wasn't explicitly setting out to conquer the world and exterminate Jews, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the Nazi government WERE fighting or those reasons. Same idea applies to the Confederates. As far as the Union is concerned, the principle reason was to preserve it, but tied up in that was the issue of slavery. Lincoln stated before he was ever elected that a house divided against itself cannot stand, for a nation cannot be half slave and have free, but rather it must be all of one or all of the other. The only way to end slavery was to preserve the union, and the only way to preserve the union was for slavery to end.
@@unconventionalideas5683 Are you really so naive? Listen to Thomas Sowell. He explains it far better than I. ps. Your user name is evidently inappropriate.
Sorry Barak but you don't exactly represent Lincoln's ideals because he believed ultimately in the ideals of this country but you hated it unless you could control it!!
)))))) TIME HAS RUN OUT !! John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Don't ignore this message... REPENT NOW !! TRUST that God raised Him from the dead !! By FAITH accept JESUS's blood alone as payment for your sins unto Salvation, to escape what's about to happen !!
Why Britton ? This man is black and is giving his opinion on something that directly affected his race . I see the appropriate ness of he speaking. We who are not , have a secondary right
Republicans are fixated on the idea that their party is connected to the party of President Lincoln, whose party also bore the name Republican. During every election season, they keep evoking the hallowed connection again saying “the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln.” Republicans want to imagine that there is a grand tradition between the Republican Party of the Reagan era and Abraham Lincoln’s federal interventionist party of 1861. Today’s Republicans, with their passion for states’ rights, their protection of the white supremacist segments of American society, their aversion to ethical federal pro action, have more ideological connections with the slaveholding southern Democrats of the 1860s than they do with Lincoln’s party. Lincoln’s administration and its legacy brought welfare to a persecuted and disadvantaged minority. It also issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing constitutional rights for every citizen, Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing suffrage, and Freedman’s Bureau to aid newly freed African Americans.
"With malice toward none" was the worst decision he ever made. He should have executed every Confederate General. Our country wouldn't be in the mess it's in today if he had.
Even the stanchest Radical Republicans would not go for that. But they did arrest the officer in charge of the Andersonville prison camp. Tried him on human rights violations. And he was executed. Also they executed those reasonable for the assassination of Lincoln. And that seemed at the time to satisfy the bloodlust of many.
@@paulspencer4834 Criminal traitors don't deserve our sympathy. They deserve to feel wounded. You know that after WWII, Germany went through a nationwide psychological trauma. They became a decent nation. In the US we commit atrocities and no one is brought to justice. That's why we have idiots trying to ban critical race theory and fighting the removal of statues glorifying slaveholders. We should have salted the hell out of the "wounded" so they would crawl back into the caves they came from. Violence and force is the only language those kind of people understand.
I would rather see Daniel Day Lewis doing this re-enactment, the best Lincoln ever. But I would also rather see Thomas Sowell or Col Allen West commenting on Lincoln's words, not the Great Pretender.
Really, really... 2:23... you include clips of this man here... in a clip about the moral greatness of Lincoln... you ought to be ashamed... so easily duped by a smooth talking... dare I say: "communist" again beginning at 2:23...
This film is moving at its start. A little jarring when lines of the great speech are skipped. Insufferable when the time that could have been used to continue with what Abraham Lincoln said was usurped for Barack Obama to speak. It made me sick. I watched no more. Maybe would appreciate Obama more were no responsible for the Great Demise underway.
@@APOCALYPSE_X-MEN Trump?!? Who said anything about Trump? You must be obsessed with that guy. It was Obama injecting himself into the words, opinion and works of the first Republican President that is the hubris in evidence here. And what’s with your fixation on sexual references as attempts to insult? That’s just perverted. You’re likely just another sick-minded unhinged leftist and I have no reason to concern myself with your worthless opinion.
Well, I was moderately enjoying this rendition, which I think lacks gravitas, until Barack Obama made an idiotic statement about how this speech reflected "certainty" about the righteousness of the cause. It didn't. Lincoln went out of his way to make that point. It's fine if people, now, want to believe whatever they like. But for a former president to make such a stupid comment is...shameful. It's ideology talking rather than history.
What the hell are you talking about? Lincoln's words are crystal clear about the rightness of the cause. Did you even listen to the speech, or are you just using this as an excuse to bash Barack Obama? It must suck to be as dumb as you.
@@frisco21 Well, you resort to the usual tactic of leftists and Democrats, using obscene language to insult those who disagree with your ideology: "It must suck to be as dumb as you are". If you read Lincoln's second inaugural address closely you would notice that Lincoln went out of his way to expose the views and positions of both sides on the war. "Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other." While it would be accurate to state that Lincoln clearly believed in the rightness of his cause, it is not true that the speech reflects "certainty". It reflects belief, and commitment, but not certainty. You may not understand this, and that is why you may regard my comment as "dumb". But if there is dumbness in this exchange, it is on the part of the one who resorts to vulgar insults rather than reasoned argument. No personal offense intended. People who let their ideology govern their thinking almost always end up making themselves dumber than they need to be. Because every ideology chooses one set of facts and opinions to adhere to, and excludes the facts and opinions which another ideology which focus on. So, ideology makes people into half wits, who say things which make perfect sense to them, and to those who share their ideology, but which do NOT make sense to those who look at all the other facts and opinions which are excluded by their ideology. I recommend you unplug from any ideology, and from any hero worship of the Barack Hussein Obama, who, in his own time, also presided over a civil war. But Obama conducted his civil war halfway around the world in Syria, where over a half million people were needlessly and uselessly slaughtered in a failed effort to removed the legitimate president of Syria from power. That Obama should be quoted about the American civil war, which he had nothing to do with, rather than the obscene slaughter in Syria, which he personally armed and paid for---is pretty outrageous in itself...
@@johnpaval9646 ... _"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right..."_ This legendary passage from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address makes it abundantly clear that Lincoln had no doubts about the certainty of the cause, and of ultimate success. There's simply no other way to interpret his words. _"...you resort to the usual tactic of leftists and Democrats..."_ I'm a lifelong Republican, stupid. I voted for McCain in '08, Romney in '12, and supported Kasich in '16. With every post, you underscore my assessment that you are not a very bright person.
@@frisco21 "There's simply no other way to interpret his words" is the statement of someone who has limited ability for analyzing and interpreting. You are locked into an opinion which you take for an absolute. And that is not a "very bright" thing to do. You may be a lifelong Republican, but you express yourself with the same restricted understanding of any Democrat. You're an online thug. And I despise thugs, whether online or elsewhere.
@@johnpaval9646 ... _"...you express yourself with the same restricted understanding of any Democrat."_ *Any* Democrat? Your blanket condemnation of every single Democrat is the very essence of the criticism you clumsily aimed at me: _"You are locked into an opinion which you take for an absolute."_ Talk about projection! Exposing hypocrites like you is truly a delight. After a mere few posts, you have demonstrated that you are not only a dim bulb, but a tribal partisan hack --- a foam-at-the-mouth ideologue who is willing to condemn an entire voting demographic based exclusively on their political party identity. What a stupid, closed-minded person you are.
Except that's not the speech. It's excerpts from the speech, but it's not the speech. www.nps.gov/linc/learn/historyculture/lincoln-second-inaugural.htm
In my public speaking class in college we had to deliver a speech in front of the class. This was the speech I chose to deliver. This was in the Philippines. I still can recite the last few lines 50 years later and my wife is always surprised whenever this speech is on TV as I say the words just before Lincoln does: With malice towards none......
He gives Lincoln the high-pitched voice that contemporary accounts describe. I've only seen Daniel Day-Lewis do it before.
"Old Abe" was a stump-speaking politician for many years before this and knew how to make his voice audible to the back-of-the-crowd attendees.
@@artbagley1406 something only two actors have seemed to catch on to.
@@nickucera205 Not the North vs. South one? I've seen a clip there where his voice was much deeper. If you can tell me which one it is I'll try to catch it, but Holbrook has done it a lot, so it's a lot to sort through.
@@nickucera205 Thank you, Nick, for the Holbrook suggestion. You've shown me the rabbit-hole that is Lincoln in film and television.
When did he have a beard
that short and how does anyone know what his voice sounded like and
I have NEVER seen a
photo of him wearing
specs .I question the legitimacy of this as it seems a lot of artistic liberties were taken.
This speech needed no commentary. It stood and still stands on its own merits.
I disagree. Many may forget Barack Obama is one of the most well educated & intelligent men to hold the highest office in the US. After graduation from two of the top universities in America, he spent twelve years as an instructor in constitutional law & worked as a civil rights attorney,. He embodies what Lincoln said 144 years before Obama became POTUS. His statement of appreciation of Lincoln's speech is apt.
@@dbyers3897 Obama's intelligence and education were unfortunately undermined by his divisiveness. That's why Lincoln was such a good president.
@@dbyers3897 Tbh, I would rather have Obama again instead of Biden xD. At least the way he was back then. It's like they say, Americans always see former presidents as being more noble in hindsight. Sadly it means they are just getting worse.
@@chrisflaherty8991 Whoosh. This is a roughly 5 hrs long cinematic mini series. The commentary is not randomly put in interrupting anything. It is part of the film's creative flavor and integral to the final product, which can be viewed on History and, if still there, Prime. Also, "Obama was undermined by his divisiveness, unlike Lincoln." Lol, wtf? Thank god we destroyed your man by over 7 million votes then utterly rekt your prophesized "red wave." Enjoy the dozens of felony charges, by the way. We always told ya we'd punish you for what you've done to the country. Turns out it wasn't a bluff after all. ;)
@@theyowiehunters7698 Clue, junior. You haven't punished anyone, nor will you. I'll enjoy seeing Biden squirm like the insignificant worm he is, him and his coke head son.
1 of the most moving speeches ever said, and how in such a short time we forget it's words and meaning.
Hard to decide if Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural presentation or his Gettysburg address is the best of American, focused, inspirational, thoughtful discourse.
Oh, we remember it, like all profound messages--periodically, and most often selectively. In fairness, daily life is an endless scrum, and just getting through it occupies most of our attention.
But look who's commenting on this. A President of the United States. Barack Obama. He's forgotten none of it, but he, unlike Lincoln, served two terms. He's still very much alive. His Vice-President is President now, and he's no Andrew Johnson.
It's not like we've learned and accomplished nothing since the Second Inaugural. But those who wait for perfection wait forever. Lincoln knew that, worked with what he had to hand, as best he could, to help as many as he could. "In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.” That's what we most need to learn from him. In all ages. Not lofty profundity, moving as it can be. The wily pragmatism that lay behind it. Lincoln's speeches are a marvel of the world--but they were not the most important tool in his kit. What he did behind the scenes mattered far more. Like lining up support in enough states to make sure the 13th Amendment would be ratified. Like summoning Frederick Douglass to his office, to ask him to work on getting the enslaved in Confederate territory to head for the Union lines, and those who were able and willing to enlist in the Union cause.
We may never see his equal again. But really, a society that can only move forward when an Abraham Lincoln is there to guide it isn't long for this world. Because they come along so rarely, and are taken from us prematurely so often. If we want to honor them--emulate them. Learn from them. Words always matter less than deeds.
I’m not even a very patriotic person and it makes me tear up sometimes.
Has there been a movie of Federick Douglas? If not, there should be.
only if Denzel Washington directs it
@@LivinginCentralNewJersey-ep4bq I00% right on that!
They have Lincoln's voice right according to contemporary accounts and descriptions. Of course, we have no recordings.
The lack of recordings of Lincoln in particular is maddening. The recording device is so simple it could have been invented much much earlier than Edison did. His engineers got it right in the first try
I really think this is likely extremely close to how he sounded based on what people say, even moreso than DDL in Lincoln. Kudos to that actor
@@jadedbrad It was many years prior, by a Frenchman, but the man who invented did not realize that those recordings could be played back until much later. He died before finishing the job.
I heard Lincoln had a high-pitched voice, yet I could never imagine this because of all the Disney films in which his voice is deep. In this rendition, though, I see how a high-pitched voice could have been compatible with what I have seen in the photos and in the words.
Literally same, not just Disney but most media think of a deep voice as the only one to be worthy of a leader. But this rendition of Lincoln is my favorite. His voice fits his face, there is power in his voice and an empathetic touch too. A stressed out voice, pleading for justice. I'd be friends with someone like Lincoln.
The actor is Graham Sibley and it's from the History Channel miniseries "Abraham Lincoln"
I'm hoping to find the whole program thank you.
The best description we have of Lincoln's voice is that it was higher pitched, based on recollections of those who heard his speeches. Who knows? Without amplification, our voices tend to be higher when we have to shout. Of course, all that really matters is the power of Lincoln's words.
Applause and all praises to Graham Sibley. Here he has presented the best Lincoln since Royal Dano.
I remember Royal Dano. A fine actor.
Lincoln created the largest system of Government. Having served this country let us not forget those who has born the battle, his widow and his orphan.
The new political party members all deserve an equal shout out. 12 men who decided enough, formed the republican mission statements chose a cabdidate wisely, and with the help of the Bible and Ben Franklins autobiography began writing the speeches that gave power top the movement. And confidence to stand up for rightiousness to the people.
This is a History Channel show called Abraham Lincoln. There's also a Washington, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, and maybe more by the same director. They all have in common fantastic casting and a half movie, half documentary style of presentation. I recommend them all.
The guy playing Frederick Douglass looks nothing like him.
@@MrAschiff
Depends on his age, are you related to Adam Schiff ? Or same father ?
@@USMC-cv5sd Hell no!
@@MrAschiff
Hahaha 😆 😂 😆
@@MrAschiff I disagree. He looks a lot like him, just full Black rather than mulatto. To cast a mulatto would mean no Black characters of great import, which considering this subject matter would be foolish. The other issue is, nobody looks exactly like Frederick Douglass except for Frederick Douglass. Hard to perfectly emulate the most handsome, visually striking man in American history. P.S.: Repugs triggered your snowflake-in-chief turned out to be a one-term dumpster fire failed presidency? And then that whole "red wave" thing you were all crooning about... Oops. Warnock sends his regards, by the way. ;)
Obama has such a deep and profound understanding of Lincoln. It’s really cool that one of our best modern day presidents has such a reverence for our greatest president.
I'm amazed how good video recording was, back in 1865!
I didn't think they had color film in 1865.
Greatest speech ever given by a world leader in my humble opinion. It sounds like a perfect harmonizing of biblical themes with American themes and themes from the Bhagavad Gita. Not longer after this extraordinary speech he would have a dream in which he saw a coffin in the Whitehouse and saw people mourning over it. He asked "who has died?" and an officer said "The president has died by an assassins bullet". And then shortly after that dream he would be shot by an assassins bullet.... on Good Friday.
👩💻This man was heaven sent. "Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Man."
He had a dream that he was going to die very shortly before he was assassinated, and he was shot on Good Friday. "Cometh the Hour, cometh the Man" indeed.
In many ways his best speech
President Lincoln lived a most difficult life, his brother in laws fought for the other side. History may have been different if he lived.
He was a true republican rest in peace Abraham Lincoln 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
Republicans are fixated on the idea that their party is connected to the party of President Lincoln, whose party also bore the name Republican. During every election season, they keep evoking the hallowed connection again saying “the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln.” Republicans want to imagine that there is a grand tradition between the Republican Party of the Reagan era and Abraham Lincoln’s federal interventionist party of 1861. Today’s Republicans, with their passion for states’ rights, their protection of the white supremacist segments of American society, their aversion to ethical federal pro action, have more ideological connections with the slaveholding southern Democrats of the 1860s than they do with Lincoln’s party. Lincoln’s administration and its legacy brought welfare to a persecuted and disadvantaged minority. It also issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing constitutional rights for every citizen, Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing suffrage, and Freedman’s Bureau to aid newly freed African Americans.
He wouldn't be a republican today
Abraham Lincoln is among the very best president's ever... I'd include Washington, made a rag tag army into a fighting force to rival Britain's military...and as president, started the very foundations of our government
AMONG? He WAS the best we had. Can you imagine if ANYONE else was in the Oval Office during the civil war??????
Lincoln; And both of the Roosevelts !
Yeah...save the fact George Washington himself was a slave owner, 123 to be exact. The man formed the basis of the United States, but the man was a lesser individual in comparison to that of Lincoln himself. George Washington will always be second to that of Lincoln for all time.
@@House_Forrester Save your libtard, moralistic, 21 century woke view for someone who cares...get a life troll
Oooh struck a nerve have we?
Does the fact cut you so deeply?
In the words of Ben Shapiro "Facts don't care about your feelings"
Thank you very much !
This needs to be seen...
I have one criticism of the performance. Lincoln did not memorize the speech and had no teleprompter. Photos show that he had paper with him while delivering the speech. So the actor here should have periodically been referring to his notes.
Where can we find photos of him delivering the speech?
Is this a movie? Where is this movie and where can we watch it?
The only other actor I’ve seen do an accurate Lincoln voice was Daniel Day Lewis. I can’t decide which is better, but also, props to this guy for not just impersonating Daniel Day Lewis’s impersonation
We will never know who did the more accurate portrayal because none of us can know what Lincoln actually sounded like. But DDL is probably the greatest actor of his generation, and his portrayal of lincoln is a tour de force, so I'm inclined to give the title to him. But this actor here still did an excellent job and deserves all the credit for doing so.
I would love to hear recited aloud the entire speech. I just read it; all of it is very moving. And, this struck me as I finished reading John Meacham's great book "And There Was LIght"--as it had come to me when I was an undergraduate in history, almost 60 years ago, that the US Civil War was a continuation of our Revolutionary War--that the Civil War did not finish resolving the contradictions inherent in the social make-up of the 13 colonies and in our Constitution. Our Revolutionary/Civil War has still not ended. I wonder will it ever? Or will too many of our citizens continue to adhere to the anti-Christian beliefs in white supremacy and in the right of some human beings to rule with absolute authority over others?
As a foreigner to the US, it seems to me that your war would have ended naturally long ago, if certain people with malicious intent would not keep stoking it -- creating problems where there are none, exaggerating and worsening existing problems, and inciting racial hatred and division where it had not been an issue in decades.
Well, the aim of that was to create an American Republic. But as Reagan warned us, that is a struggle that may never end. since tyranny is what the leadership so often prefers
I have no idea how people in a crowd that size could hear what he was saying.
My mom couldn't hear LBJ when he was here in Chicago , and there were microphones
I don't know about the inaugurations, but actually the Gettysburg Address was famously hard to hear. Some people didn't even know it had started til it was over ! I suppose a crowd back then would be more silent and listen harder. And probably go and pick up a copy of the speech afterward (or even before, to follow along) somewhere. Just speculating.
@@theyowiehunters7698 They shaped the venues and the stands very precisely and taught the art of projection in a way that we no longer do.
I wish they’d have let Lincoln speak his whole piece before interrupting him with commentary.
By March of 1965 it was very clear that the Union would win; the speech reflects no uncertainty about that.
Well considering that was 100 years after the war ended, yes I would say it was pretty clear the Union won at that point.
1865!
Yes I would say that by March of 1965 we knew that the Union won
@@loyevangelists ...even earlier than that: When Sherman marched to the sea through Georgia at the end of 1864, it was clear the Union was on the path to victory. By that point, the US Army was an unstoppable force.
@@frisco21 Agreed. By 1864 the only thing that could have prevented the North from winning was the people of the North loosing the will to continue the war. Their re-electing of Lincoln over McClellan proved that their heart was very much still in the war. They were determined to see the war through to victory and that insured the final and total defeat of the South.
I think he got the voice just right. It is said that he had a high pitched voice that carried well to the limits of a large crowd. Whether the accent is right, I do not know, The Gettesyburg speech was wonderful, This was more powerful,
Why did he put on the reading glasses if he had the speech memorized? For Academy Award winning dramatic effect?
A Republican freed the slave.
A LIBERAL freed the slaves. Today's Republicans wave the Confederate flag.
Well said of him.
Too bad that the Phonograph was only invented 11 years later. Having recordings of those historic speeches would've been really cool.
Was this really his voice..i was shocked with Patton's real voice too its so high pitched.
Living history of our greatest President!! 🙏
Bravo Mr Abraham Lincoln.
Fact. Lincoln said " If I and save the union without freeing one slave, I would do it"
You forgot to complete the sentence. He added,,, if I can free the slaves to save the union, I will do it. Or words to that effect.
Was this a documentary?
Isn't that T-bag from breaking bad?
Who played Lincoln in this?
This was a time NOT of one upmamship nor self righteous celebration. It was a time of serious concern about the country's future.
where is this from?
New York
America has been blessed with some of the best orators as president: Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, Obama. Then there's Joe Biden.
He can be an excellent orator if he is passionate enough. His appearance at the White House Press Dinner or his appearances in Ukraine and among Ukrainian Refugees in Poland are proof enough of that (look them up). But never mind that. He is much more effective than many of those Presidents.
Of post war Presidents, Grant had a pleasant baritone voice but did not project well, Garfield was a great orator. as was Benjamin Harrison. and McKinley. Teddy Roosevelt was excellent and Wilson even better. If radio had been available to Wilson he might have carried the country with him. Coolidge was surprisingly good on the radio and as a platform speaker.. FDR was a genius on the radio.
I fear we have not seen the likes of him in my lifetime.
Agreed completely, but in my view Lincoln is one of the greatest world leaders in all of human history, so it isn't surprising to me that we haven't seen someone like that in our lifetime.
What great quality video for the 1800s lol
The world's greatest president of all time
We could really use him now.
He was a Republican. I think he would be so ashamed and saddened to see what's become of the GOP.
Lincoln would be a democrat today.
Yep. A party that will stand by as the Dems openly steal a presidential election.
The republican party was a child in Lincoln's time. It hadn't yet had time to decide what it wanted to be IF it ever grew up. And MAYBE it did reach adulthood at one point, but I think it's senile now.
Maybe read your own history.
"At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power."
@@HenryThomas-pq7pc No, Democrats want to divide us for attaining power.
this is an edited version of abe s speech ,it is not the full speech.
England abolished slavery in 1807 and freed the slaves in 1838. France in 1794. Spain in 1811. Netherlands, in 1863. It was time for the USA to join modernity. It would 50 years from 1865 until 1914, when America ascended to the leadership of the Free World.
The way the Dutch did meant all slaves had to work for ten more years as repayment, so effectively slavery did not end until 1873. Nevertheless, it was a good time to end it. Our only regret should be that we allowed it in the first place.
From Lincoln to Biden....you've come a long way baby? 🥺 😳 😂😂😂 💩☻
John Wilkes Booth was at that speech
John Wilkes booth for president 2024!
Lincoln was a butcher who did not care about how many sons were killed in the war but he protected his own son.
I disagree that Lincoln thought the Civil War was meant to free the slaves. He believed slavery was a State matter. However, the Framers had set up the government in such a way that slavery was put on the path of ultimate extinction. The South, however, thwarted the Framer's goals by attempting to extend slavery into the new Territories. Because they couldn't get their way, they illegally seceded from the Union.
Lincoln certainly opposed slavery but he rightly did not think he had the authority under the Constitution to free the slaves. That's why he freed the slaves in the South only as a military necessity (but not in the border states). His Second Inaugural summarizes a lot of what he had been saying in speeches up to that time. However, it's remarkable -- and Mr. Obama recognized it -- that there's a biblical resonance in the reasoning of the Second Inaugural.
However, Lincoln was not trying to transform the country into something else. He was trying to move the country back to the Constitution, back to the Framers, back to the meaning of the Declaration of Independence (as Martin Luther King Jr. saw). He also recommended charity for the losers, so that Northerners should not hate Southerners once the war was over.
I disagree with you. Certainly not in his later years. All you have to do is read the entire second inaugural address and the Emancipation Proclamation.
@@MrAschiff What do you disagree with? I've read everything Lincoln ever wrote or said, so you have to be more specific if you want a relevant answer.
@@VernCrisler If you read his second inaugural address, he mentions that the war was about slavery.
@@VernCrisler One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves not distributed generally over the union but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.
@@MrAschiff Yes, the war was aggravated by slavery. But the war was about preserving the Union, not freeing the slaves. Even the EP doesn't free all the slaves, only those in rebellious States.
Who has the is ?name,s
This isn’t the full address, just excerpts strung together. A travesty. Read the full speech.
T civil war was never about ending slavery, it was about keeping the country together, Lincoln was willing to have the status quo remain (meaning slavery) just to avoid a war.
Not exactly. Lincoln was willing to let slavery stay around, but not spread beyond its present limits. The slaveholding elite saw that as an act of aggression against their institution, that's why they still seceded right after his election victory. So, eventually keeping the union together and ending slavery became one and the same cause.
Well, the "status quo" was that under the Constitution slavery was a State matter, so the Federal government could have nothing to do with it. That means Lincoln was upholding the Constitution in his desire to avoid war over the issue. However, the new Territories out West were a different matter. They were under the supervision of the Federal government, and Lincoln objected to the spread of slavery to these new Territories. The South insisted on it, however, and fired on Fort Sumter to express their rejection of Lincoln's administration.
True, but the South would not go along with any form of reasonable solution.
@@johngreen3543 seceding from the Union is a reasonable solution. States have that right.
@@SU-vy8nb If you haven't yet, you should read Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, about Lincoln and the cabinet. She makes a very good case that his true beliefs never faltered, yet his innate political skill allowed him to move in the direction of abolishing slavery at the rate at which the country was ready, and no faster.
No one's answered, but this looks like Daniel Day Lewis so the movie must be "Lincoln." I started it on
ce or twice...
No, it's a History Channel show called Abraham Lincoln. There's also a Washington, Grant, Teddy Rosevelt, and maybe more by the same director. They all have in common fantastic casting and a half movie, half documentary style of presentation.
تحية لاعظم محرر في تاريخ الانسانيه٠٠لمن حرر العبيد حقا٠٠وقاتل وقتل في سبيل تحريرهم
٠٠انني عندما أتصفح الكتب السماوية للديانات الثلاثه لم أجد نصا فيها أو نبيا من انبياءها ٠٠ من حرم
ان يستبعد الإنسان اخوه الانسان٠٠لابل ذهبت بعض الديانات
إلى اعتبار العبيد والجواري بمثابة هدايا و سلع تباع وتشترى٠٠٠وثمنا يدفع من قبل المذنب بتحرير بعضا منها حتى يغفر الله ذنوبا ارتكبها ٠٠وكان البشر سلعة أو نقود ذهبيه يمتلكها الاغنياء يدفعونهاثمنا للتكفير عن ذنوبهم٠٠!!!
انني واقسم على ذلك كنت أنظر إلى هذا الرجل نظرة احترام وتقدير
منذو ان قرانا عنه ونحن صغار في كتب دراستنا ٠٠٠في الابتدائيه ٠٠٠٠و
ان من يريد أن يعرف مقدارعظمة هذا الإنسان العظيم٠٠عليه ان يقرأ كتاب( كوخ العم توم)٠٠وبعدها يدلي برايه حول ما كتبت٠٠٠
انحني لك اكبارا وتقديرا ياايها الإنسان العظيم٠٠٠
Abe took on A lot. In the end gave up his life.
Whenever someone brings up "the party of Lincoln" or "liberals are bad", they seem to ignore that Lincoln's party was liberal during that era. The parties started to change once FDR got into office. Conservativism is the desire to keep the ideals and policies of the past and present as is because they do not wish to change society whereas liberalism is the concept of changing and evolving to better society, even at the cost of giving up laws and policies that some may like at that time. The democratic south was very conservative with its desire to keep slavery as is, keep the states separate, and hold onto their old ideologies while the Republican party of the more liberal north desired to move away from that and were far more progressive for the time period.
People don't realize how liberal the GOP was at the time. I mean even slavery aside the homestead act was certainly a liberal endeavor. Then you look at the land grant college act, which basically gave land away to colleges and universities. Then they even pushed to make higher education more practical instead of the BS classical education that was common at the time. Then you can further even look at the national banking act which truly was a step in making a stronger national currency. In principle you just cannot imagine today's GOP taking any of these moves.
That’s good but look at the state of the place now. Corruption is consuming it.
A Republican !!!
Republicans are fixated on the idea that their party is connected to the party of President Lincoln, whose party also bore the name Republican. During every election season, they keep evoking the hallowed connection again saying “the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln.” Republicans want to imagine that there is a grand tradition between the Republican Party of the Reagan era and Abraham Lincoln’s federal interventionist party of 1861. Today’s Republicans, with their passion for states’ rights, their protection of the white supremacist segments of American society, their aversion to ethical federal pro action, have more ideological connections with the slaveholding southern Democrats of the 1860s than they do with Lincoln’s party. Lincoln’s administration and its legacy brought welfare to a persecuted and disadvantaged minority. It also issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing constitutional rights for every citizen, Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing suffrage, and Freedman’s Bureau to aid newly freed African Americans.
Lincoln was a RINO
It’s an abomination to have Obama’s commentary is a part of is presentation of one of the greatest American speeches ever given.
as one of the only 46 men to ever be President of the United States, Obama has more in common with Lincoln than someone like you will ever have. also, as one of the even fewer men to give a second inaugural address, Obama is uniquely qualified to offer his opinions on the event, its meaning, and importance.
the abomination is that people like you still existing in this nation and doing all you can to keep it from living up to its creeds and purpose. the abomination is that 159 years after the end of the Civil War we still have to deal with inequality, bigotry, prejudice, and the fallacy of white supremacy. Obama represents the ideals Lincoln fought for and for which his life was sadly taken.
This is classic rewriting of history. The Civil War was not fought to free the slaves, it was fought to preserve the Union, in fact Lincoln said as much in his first inaugural address in 1861. During the war he also said the South could keep slavery if they stayed in the Union.
It should be noted that Maryland, Delaware and Kentucky all slave States were on the Union side during the war.
You forgot to include Missouri.
@@frisco21 my research has that Missouri was split with many men joining the Union side and many on the Confederate side. But it did not join the Confederacy.
@@robertnicholson1409 ...It is true that Missouri was closely divided in its loyalties, but a thin plurality of the populace was pro-Union, and so Missouri remained "loyal" to the Union --- sort of. But the important point is that the state did not secede and join the Confederacy. So, in your recitation you should have included Missouri alongside Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky.
@@frisco21 ok I stand corrected but it looks to me that Missouri were fence sitting. But yes it remained in the Union.
@@frisco21 I agree. The main reason for the post in the first place was to knock down this myth that the Civil War was fought over slavery .
I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, and commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, do hereby proclaim and declare that… it is my purpose upon the next meeting of Congress to again recommend… that the effort to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon the continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the government existing there, will be continued [emphasis added]. - Abraham Lincoln (preliminary draft, Emancipation Proclamation)
A position that was dropped, by the president who then authorised the recruitment of black troops into the Army. And then later put his political weight behind the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Oh, and BTW:
"Still, the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, will it be wiser to take it as it is and help to improve it, or to reject and disperse it! Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new State government! Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave State of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-State constitution, *giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man.* Their legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These 12,000 persons are thus fully committed to the Union and to perpetual freedom in the State -committed to the very things, and nearly all the things, the nation wants - and they ask the nation's recognition and its assistance to make good their committal.
Now, if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We, in effect, say to the white man: You are worthless or worse; we will neither help you, nor be helped by you. To the blacks we say: This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how. If this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I have so far been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary, we recognize and sustain the new government of Louisiana, the converse of all this is made true. We encourage the hearts and nerve the arms of the 12,000 to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. *The colored man, too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it than by running backward over them!* Concede that the new government of Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than by smashing it."
-- President Abraham Lincoln, final public address of 11 April, 1865
The Emancipation Proclamation:
During the winter and spring 1861-1862, public support grew rapidly for the view that slavery must be abolished everywhere. Lincoln did not ignore the ever louder calls for decisive action.72 On June 19, he signed a law abolishing slavery in all the federal territories. At the same time, he was quietly preparing an even more dramatic measure.
At a cabinet meeting on July 22, Lincoln read out the draft text of a document he had prepared - a proclamation that would give the Confederate states a hundred days to stop their “rebellion” upon threat of declaring all slaves in those states to be free.
The President told his cabinet that he did not want advice on the merits of the proclamation itself - he had made up his mind about that, he said - but he would welcome suggestions about how best to implement the edict. For two days cabinet members debated the draft. Only two - Secretary of State William Seward and Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase, abolitionists who had challenged Lincoln for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination - agreed even in part with the proclamation’s contents. Seward persuaded the President not to issue it until after a Union military victory (of which so far there had been few), or otherwise it would appear “the last measure of an exhausted government, a cry for help.”
Union General McClellan’s success on September 17 in holding off the forces of General Lee at Antietam provided a federal victory of sorts, and the waited-for opportunity. Five days later, Lincoln issued his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which included a favorable reference to colonization:
I, Abraham Lincoln … do hereby proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States, and each of the states, and the people thereof …
That it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress to again recommend the adoption of a practical measure tendering pecuniary aid to the free acceptance or rejection of all slave-states, so called, the people whereof may not be then be in rebellion against the United States, and which states, may then have voluntarily adopted, or thereafter may voluntarily adopt, immediate, or gradual abolishment of slavery within their respective limits; and that the effort to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon this continent, or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the Governments existing there, will be continued.
Lincoln then went on to state that on January 1, 1863,
all persons held as slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever, free …
The edict then cited the law passed by Congress on March 13, 1862, which prohibited military personnel from returning escaped slaves, and the second Confiscation Act of July 1862.
Proclamation Limitations:
On New Year’s Day, 1863, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation.76 Contrary to what its title suggests, however, the presidential edict did not immediately free a single slave. It “freed” only slaves who were under Confederate control, and explicitly exempted slaves in Union-controlled territories, including federal-occupied areas of the Confederacy, West Virginia, and the four slave-holding states that remained in the Union.
The Proclamation, Secretary Seward wryly commented, emancipated slaves where it could not reach them, and left them in bondage where it could have set them free. Moreover, because it was issued as a war measure, the Proclamation’s long-term validity was uncertain. Apparently any future President could simply revoke it. “The popular picture of Lincoln using a stroke of the pen to lift the shackles from the limbs of four million slaves is ludicrously false,” historian Allan Nevins has noted.
‘Military Necessity’
Lincoln himself specifically cited “military necessity” as his reason for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. After more than a year of combat, and in spite of its great advantages in industrial might and numbers, federal forces had still not succeeded in breaking the South. At this critical juncture of the war, the President apparently now hoped, a formal edict abolishing slavery in the Confederate states would strike a blow at the Confederacy’s ability to wage war by encouraging dissension, escapes, and possibly revolt among its large slave labor force.
As the war progressed, Black labor had become ever more critical in the hard-pressed Confederacy. Blacks planted, cultivated and harvested the food that they then transported to the Confederate armies. Blacks raised and butchered the beef, pigs and chicken used to feed the Confederate troops. They wove the cloth and knitted the socks to clothe the grey-uniformed soldiers. As Union armies invaded the South, tearing up railroads and demolishing bridges, free Blacks and slaves repaired them. They toiled in the South’s factories, shipping yards, and mines. In 1862, the famous Tredegar iron works advertised for 1,000 slaves. In 1864, there were 4,301 blacks and 2,518 whites in the iron mines of the Confederate states east of the Mississippi.
Blacks also served with the Confederate military forces as mechanics, teamsters, and common laborers. They cared for the sick and scrubbed the wounded in Confederate hospitals. Nearly all of the South’s military fortifications were constructed by Black laborers. Most of the cooks in the Confederate army were slaves. Of the 400 workers at the Naval arsenal in Selma, Alabama, in 1865, 310 were Blacks. Blacks served with crews of Confederate blockade-runners and stoked the firerooms of the South’s warships.
Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the legendary cavalry commander, said in a postwar interview: “When I entered the army I took 47 Negroes into the army with me, and 45 of them were surrendered with me … These boys stayed with me, drove my teams, and better Confederates did not live.”
On several occasions, Lincoln explained his reasons for issuing the Proclamation. On September 13, 1862, the day after the preliminary proclamation was issued, Lincoln met with a delegation of pro-abolitionist Christian ministers, and told them bluntly: “Understand, I raise no objections against it [slavery] on legal or constitutional grounds … I view the matter [emancipation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.”
To Salmon Chase, his Treasury Secretary, the President justified the Proclamations’s limits: “The original [preliminary] proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure,” he explained. “The exceptions were made because the military necessity did not apply to the exempted localities. Nor does that necessity apply to them now any more than it did then.”
Horace Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, called upon the President to immediately and totally abolish slavery in an emphatic and prominently displayed editorial published August 20, 1862. Lincoln responded in a widely-quoted letter:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union …
Concern about growing sentiment in the North to end slavery, along with sharp criticism from prominent abolitionists, was apparently another motivating factor for the President. (Abolitionists even feared that the Confederate states might give up their struggle for independence before the January first deadline, and thus preserve the institution of slavery.)
Lincoln assured Edward Stanly, a pro-slavery Southerner he had appointed as military governor of the occupied North Carolina coast, that “the proclamation had become a civil necessity to prevent the radicals from openly embarrassing the government in the conduct of the war.”
Abolishing Slavery
A Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which would prohibit slavery throughout the United States, was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864. Because the House failed immediately to approve it with the necessary two-thirds majority vote, Lincoln, in his Annual Message of December 6, asked the House to reconsider it. On January 31, 1865, and with three votes to spare, the House approved it. By this time, slavery had already been abolished in Arkansas, Louisiana, Maryland and Missouri, and a similar move seemed imminent in Tennessee and Kentucky.
On February 3, 1865, Lincoln and Secretary of State Seward met with a Confederate peace delegation that included Confederate Vice President Stephens. Lincoln told the delegation that he still favored compensation to owners of emancipated slaves. It had never been his intention, the President said, to interfere with slavery in the states; he had been driven to it by necessity. He believed that the people of the North and South were equally responsible for slavery. If hostilities ceased and the states voluntarily abolished slavery, he believed, the government would indemnify the owners to the extent, possibly, of $400 million. Although the conference was not fruitful, two days later Lincoln presented to his cabinet a proposal to appropriate $400 million for reimbursement to slave owners, providing hostilities stopped by April 1. (The cabinet unanimously rejected the proposal, which Lincoln then regretfully abandoned.)
On April 9, General Lee surrendered his army to General Grant at Appomatox Courthouse, and by the end of May, all fighting had ceased. The Civil War was over.
Lincoln’s Fear of ‘Race War’
A short time before his death on April 15, 1865, Lincoln met with General Benjamin F. Butler, who reported that the President spoke to him of “exporting” the Blacks.
“But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free?,” Lincoln said. “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.” Along with a request to Butler to look into the question of how best to use “our very large navy” to send “the blacks away,” the President laid bare his fears for the future:
If these black soldiers of ours go back to the South, I am afraid that they will be but little better off with their masters than they were before, and yet they will be free men. I fear a race war, and it will be at least a guerilla war because we have taught these men how to fight … There are plenty of men in the North who will furnish the negroes with arms if there is any oppression of them by their late masters.
To his dying day, it appears, Lincoln did not believe that harmony between White and Black was feasible, and viewed resettlement of the Blacks as the preferable alternative to race conflict. ” … Although Lincoln believed in the destruction of slavery,” concludes Black historian Charles Wesley (in an article in The Journal of Negro History), “he desired the complete separation of the whites and blacks. Throughout his political career, Lincoln persisted in believing in the colonization of the Negro.”
Frederick Douglass, a gifted African American writer and activist who knew Lincoln, characterized him in a speech delivered in 1876:
In his interest, in his association, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of the white man. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people, to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.
Allan Nevins, one of this century’s most prolific and acclaimed historians of US history, summed up Lincoln’s view of the complex issue of race, and his vision of America’s future:
His conception ran beyond the mere liberation of four million colored folk; it implied a far-reaching alteration of American society, industry, and government. A gradual planned emancipation, a concomitant transportation of hundreds of thousands and perhaps even millions of people overseas, a careful governmental nursing of the new colonies, and a payment of unprecedented sums to the section thus deprived of its old labor supply - this scheme carried unprecedented implications.
To put this into effect would immensely increase the power of the national government and widen its abilities. If even partially practicable, it would mean a long step toward rendering the American people homogeneous in color and race, a rapid stimulation of immigration to replace the workers exported, a greater world position for the republic, and a pervasive change in popular outlook and ideas. The attempt would do more to convert the unorganized country into an organized nation than anything yet planned. Impossible, and undesirable even if possible? - probably; but Lincoln continued to hold to his vision.
For most Americans today, Lincoln’s plan to “solve” America’s vexing racial problem by resettling the Blacks in a foreign country probably seems bizarre and utterly impractical, if not outrageous and cruel. At the same time, though, and particularly when considered in the context of the terrible Civil War that cost so many lives, it is worth pondering just why and how such a far-fetched plan was ever able to win the support of a leader of the stature and wisdom of Abraham Lincoln.
@@frostazaththyrn1367 And yet:
Colonisation was a position *that was dropped, by the president who then authorised the recruitment of black troops into the Army. And then later put his political weight behind the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.*
Oh, and BTW:
"Still, the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, will it be wiser to take it as it is and help to improve it, or to reject and disperse it! Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new State government! Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave State of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-State constitution, *giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man.* Their legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These 12,000 persons are thus fully committed to the Union and to perpetual freedom in the State -committed to the very things, and nearly all the things, the nation wants - and they ask the nation's recognition and its assistance to make good their committal.
Now, if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We, in effect, say to the white man: You are worthless or worse; we will neither help you, nor be helped by you. To the blacks we say: This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how. If this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I have so far been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary, we recognize and sustain the new government of Louisiana, the converse of all this is made true. *We encourage the hearts and nerve the arms of the 12,000 to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. The colored man, too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it than by running backward over them!* Concede that the new government of Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than by smashing it."
-- President Abraham Lincoln, final public address of 11 April, 1865
I'm sorry. You can keep pushing this broken narrative that Lincoln was all about colonising blacks out of the country all you like. The plain fact is that it was a position HE DROPPED. The speech regarding the reconstruction of the Louisiana state government makes plain that he shifted toward enfranchising freed blacks. I'm sorry if reality doesn't suit you, but that is not my problem.
@@frostazaththyrn1367 Oh, and BTW, it seems you forgot some of the things Fredrick Douglass said about Lincoln a bit further along in his speech from the cherry-picked quote you presented:
"Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a preeminence in this worship at once full and supreme. First, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his stepchildren; children by adoption, children by forces of circumstances and necessity. To you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor. Instead of supplanting you at his altar, we would exhort you to build high his monuments; let them be of the most costly material, of the most cunning workmanship; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect; let their bases be upon solid rocks, and their summits lean against the unchanging blue, overhanging sky, and let them endure forever! But while in the abundance of your wealth, and in the fullness of your just and patriotic devotion, you do all this, we entreat you to despise not the humble offering we this day unveil to view; for while Abraham Lincoln saved for you a country, *he delivered us from a bondage, according to Jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.*
I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. *His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.*
Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. . . . The man who could say, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether,” gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go.
Fellow-citizens, whatever else in this world may be partial, unjust, and uncertain, time, time! is impartial, just, and certain in its action. In the realm of mind, as well as in the realm of matter, it is a great worker, and often works wonders. *The honest and comprehensive statesman, clearly discerning the needs of his country, and earnestly endeavoring to do his whole duty, though covered and blistered with reproaches, may safely leave his course to the silent judgment of time.* Few great public men have ever been the victims of fiercer denunciation than Abraham Lincoln was during his administration. He was often wounded in the house of his friends. Reproaches came thick and fast upon him from within and from without, and from opposite quarters. He was assailed by Abolitionists; he was assailed by slaveholders; he was assailed by the men who were for peace at any price; he was assailed by those who were for a more vigorous prosecution of the war; he was assailed for not making the war an abolition war; and he was bitterly assailed for making the war an abolition war.
. . . . .
"Upon his inauguration as President of the United States, an office, even when assumed under the most favorable conditions, fitted to tax and strain the largest abilities, Abraham Lincoln was met by a tremendous crisis. He was called upon not merely to administer the Government, but to decide, in the face of terrible odds, the fate of the Republic.
A formidable rebellion rose in his path before him; the Union was already practically dissolved; his country was torn and rent asunder at the center. Hostile armies were already organized against the Republic, armed with the munitions of war which the Republic had provided for its own defence. The tremendous question for him to decide was whether his country should survive the crisis and flourish, or be dismembered and perish. His predecessor in office had already decided the question in favor of national dismemberment, by denying to it the right of self-defence and self-preservation-a right which belongs to the meanest insect.
Happily for the country, happily for you and for me, the judgment of James Buchanan, the patrician, was not the judgment of Abraham Lincoln, the plebeian. He brought his strong common sense, sharpened in the school of adversity, to bear upon the question. He did not hesitate, he did not doubt, he did not falter; but at once resolved that at whatever peril, at whatever cost, the union of the States should be preserved. A patriot himself, his faith was strong and unwavering in the patriotism of his countrymen. Timid men said before Mr. Lincoln’s inauguration, that we had seen the last President of the United States. A voice in influential quarters said, “Let the Union slide.” Some said that a Union maintained by the sword was worthless. Others said a rebellion of 8,000,000 cannot be suppressed; but in the midst of all this tumult and timidity, and against all this, *Abraham Lincoln was clear in his duty, and had an oath in heaven. He calmly and bravely heard the voice of doubt and fear all around him; but he had an oath in heaven, and there was not power enough on earth to make this honest boatman, back-woodsman, and broad-handed splitter of rails evade or violate that sacred oath. **_He had not been schooled in the ethics of slavery; his plain life had favored his love of truth. He had not been taught that treason and perjury were the proof of honor and honesty. His moral training was against his saying one thing when he meant another_** The trust that Abraham Lincoln had in himself and in the people was surprising and grand, but it was also enlightened and well founded. He knew the American people better than they knew themselves, and his truth was based upon this knowledge.*
Fellow-citizens, the fourteenth day of April, 1865, of which this is the eleventh anniversary, is now and will ever remain a memorable day in the annals of this Republic. It was on the evening of this day, while a fierce and sanguinary rebellion was in the last stages of its desolating power; while its armies were broken and scattered before the invincible armies of Grant and Sherman; while a great nation, torn and rent by war, was already beginning to raise to the skies loud anthems of joy at the dawn of peace, it was startled, amazed, and overwhelmed by the crowning crime of slavery - the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. It was a new crime, a pure act of malice. No purpose of the rebellion was to be served by it. It was the simple gratification of a hell-black spirit of revenge. *But it has done good after all. It has filled the country with a deeper abhorrence of slavery and a deeper love for the great liberator."*
housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/teagle/texts/frederick-douglass-speech-at-dedication-of-emancipation-memorial-1876/
teachingamericanhistory.org/document/oration-in-memory-of-abraham-lincoln/
Again, sorry if reality doesn't suit you.
With malice towards none.
Doesn't touch Daniel Day Lewis's version
Sic Semper Tyranus
Not crazy about his cadence. The weight of the words is kind of run over.
I would agree that this might very well have been Lincoln's best speech. However, stating that the war was about ending slavery depends on your point-of-view. If you are from Pennsylvania, it would be seen as a war to end slavery, and yet, to many Northerners freeing the slaves was secondary to preserving the Union. When the Emancipation Proclamation became law, many Union officers resigned their commission because they refused to fight a war to end slavery. If, however, you are from South Carolina, the war has nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with independence and State's Rights. According to statistics, %75 of the White Southern population did NOT own slaves. How then, to them, can the US Civil War be about slavery?
States' Rights for what? There had been an attempt by SC to secede earlier, but none of the others joined, and a consideration nearly went through with the North during the war of 1812, but that's another story.
The Confederate leaders rebelled in order to protect their states "rights" to own people. Yes, most of the poor people who fought for the confederacy didn't own slaves and weren't directly fighting for slavery. But judging what the cause of a war is based on what the common solider is fighting for is not how history is done. The common infantry man fighting for the Nazi's wasn't explicitly setting out to conquer the world and exterminate Jews, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the Nazi government WERE fighting or those reasons. Same idea applies to the Confederates.
As far as the Union is concerned, the principle reason was to preserve it, but tied up in that was the issue of slavery. Lincoln stated before he was ever elected that a house divided against itself cannot stand, for a nation cannot be half slave and have free, but rather it must be all of one or all of the other. The only way to end slavery was to preserve the union, and the only way to preserve the union was for slavery to end.
And Obama has done his best to unravel any progress the USA has made since the death of Dr. King.
Shut up
Well, here's the prize for the most uninformed comment in this string.
@@jjhpor Says you wearing your media propaganda blinkers.
How so? Please elaborate.
@@unconventionalideas5683 Are you really so naive? Listen to Thomas Sowell. He explains it far better than I.
ps. Your user name is evidently inappropriate.
Sorry Barak but you don't exactly represent Lincoln's ideals because he believed ultimately in the ideals of this country but you hated it unless you could control it!!
Only in whatever fantasy parallel universe you live in.
@@LordZontar Trump 2024, baby!!!
@@joelcross1355 Again, only in the fantasy universe you live in.
Trump...2024...we need his modern day politics.....now...
)))))) TIME HAS RUN OUT !! John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Don't ignore this message... REPENT NOW !! TRUST that God raised Him from the dead !! By FAITH accept JESUS's blood alone as payment for your sins unto Salvation, to escape what's about to happen !!
👍
If this is the BEST EVHA! the best is pretty crappy
From a man like Lincoln to a guy like trump. Good grief.
I was enjoying myself very much until you all put Barry O'bama in there. Why David, why?
Why Britton ? This man is black and is giving his opinion on something that directly affected his race . I see the appropriate ness of he speaking. We who are not , have a secondary right
@@mariocisneros911
Let's not go color first but maybe Obama's political views? But I agree with you since Obama is black.
So people will forget Lincoln was a republican.
@@robdixon7732 Yep, but politically the Republican Party of the time were more in line with Modern Democrats.
@@juicedbeetlejuice4572 That's a myth.
Would Lincoln have had that Scottish leaning accent??
Halfway through it changes to a southern drawl
Didn't he plan to send the slaves to Liberia?
Myself i have to say Lincoln was one of our greatest president do you know many black people to this day do not know Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN
Yeah the Republicans were the progressive party of the day lol.
Republicans are fixated on the idea that their party is connected to the party of President Lincoln, whose party also bore the name Republican. During every election season, they keep evoking the hallowed connection again saying “the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln.” Republicans want to imagine that there is a grand tradition between the Republican Party of the Reagan era and Abraham Lincoln’s federal interventionist party of 1861. Today’s Republicans, with their passion for states’ rights, their protection of the white supremacist segments of American society, their aversion to ethical federal pro action, have more ideological connections with the slaveholding southern Democrats of the 1860s than they do with Lincoln’s party. Lincoln’s administration and its legacy brought welfare to a persecuted and disadvantaged minority. It also issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing constitutional rights for every citizen, Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing suffrage, and Freedman’s Bureau to aid newly freed African Americans.
And Jefferson Davis was a democrat.
He would disavow today's Republican party and everyone in it.
"With malice toward none" was the worst decision he ever made. He should have executed every Confederate General. Our country wouldn't be in the mess it's in today if he had.
What are you basing that claim on?
@@wyattmcgee1 I base it on the presence of backward and ignorant southerners wanting the south to rise again.
Even the stanchest Radical Republicans would not go for that. But they did arrest the officer in charge of the Andersonville prison camp. Tried him on human rights violations. And he was executed. Also they executed those reasonable for the assassination of Lincoln. And that seemed at the time to satisfy the bloodlust of many.
Yeah, that would have helped heal the wounds...your an idiot
@@paulspencer4834 Criminal traitors don't deserve our sympathy. They deserve to feel wounded. You know that after WWII, Germany went through a nationwide psychological trauma. They became a decent nation. In the US we commit atrocities and no one is brought to justice. That's why we have idiots trying to ban critical race theory and fighting the removal of statues glorifying slaveholders.
We should have salted the hell out of the "wounded" so they would crawl back into the caves they came from. Violence and force is the only language those kind of people understand.
I would rather see Daniel Day Lewis doing this re-enactment, the best Lincoln ever.
But I would also rather see Thomas Sowell or Col Allen West commenting on Lincoln's words, not the Great Pretender.
Poor Lincoln had no idea how low his party would sink in the future.
booooo
Really, really... 2:23... you include clips of this man here... in a clip about the moral greatness of Lincoln... you ought to be ashamed... so easily duped by a smooth talking... dare I say: "communist" again beginning at 2:23...
everything was good until Obama appeared
We as a country have not had a completely unsoiled past. Everything was not "good".
Did you enjoy getting owned in the 2020 and 2022 elections? :)
This film is moving at its start. A little jarring when lines of the great speech are skipped. Insufferable when the time that could have been used to continue with what Abraham Lincoln said was usurped for Barack Obama to speak. It made me sick. I watched no more. Maybe would appreciate Obama more were no responsible for the Great Demise underway.
Obama’s narcissism ruins this and everything he touched.
Trump is such a narcissist he wants to be carved on Mount Rushmore.
If you think that Obama is a narcissist but Trump isn't then your opinion is as withered and useless as a 117-year-old woman's clit.
@@APOCALYPSE_X-MEN Trump?!? Who said anything about Trump? You must be obsessed with that guy. It was Obama injecting himself into the words, opinion and works of the first Republican President that is the hubris in evidence here. And what’s with your fixation on sexual references as attempts to insult? That’s just perverted. You’re likely just another sick-minded unhinged leftist and I have no reason to concern myself with your worthless opinion.
silly comment.
I could have done without Obama's mug
I like this video until Obama was added on. I look at Obama as the nation's Divider, not aa a Uniter.
Obama doesn't even like abe Lincoln
Why? Because he is Whyte 🍚
and you indeed look like a racist... Odd that
@@cinemaaficionado That's right. Republicans freed the slaves and Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan.
Obama: This speech was prophetic.
Java retards: lol Obama hates Lincoln
Silly man
Well, I was moderately enjoying this rendition, which I think lacks gravitas, until Barack Obama made an idiotic statement about how this speech reflected "certainty" about the righteousness of the cause. It didn't. Lincoln went out of his way to make that point. It's fine if people, now, want to believe whatever they like. But for a former president to make such a stupid comment is...shameful. It's ideology talking rather than history.
What the hell are you talking about? Lincoln's words are crystal clear about the rightness of the cause. Did you even listen to the speech, or are you just using this as an excuse to bash Barack Obama? It must suck to be as dumb as you.
@@frisco21 Well, you resort to the usual tactic of leftists and Democrats, using obscene language to insult those who disagree with your ideology: "It must suck to be as dumb as you are". If you read Lincoln's second inaugural address closely you would notice that Lincoln went out of his way to expose the views and positions of both sides on the war. "Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other." While it would be accurate to state that Lincoln clearly believed in the rightness of his cause, it is not true that the speech reflects "certainty". It reflects belief, and commitment, but not certainty. You may not understand this, and that is why you may regard my comment as "dumb". But if there is dumbness in this exchange, it is on the part of the one who resorts to vulgar insults rather than reasoned argument. No personal offense intended. People who let their ideology govern their thinking almost always end up making themselves dumber than they need to be. Because every ideology chooses one set of facts and opinions to adhere to, and excludes the facts and opinions which another ideology which focus on. So, ideology makes people into half wits, who say things which make perfect sense to them, and to those who share their ideology, but which do NOT make sense to those who look at all the other facts and opinions which are excluded by their ideology. I recommend you unplug from any ideology, and from any hero worship of the Barack Hussein Obama, who, in his own time, also presided over a civil war. But Obama conducted his civil war halfway around the world in Syria, where over a half million people were needlessly and uselessly slaughtered in a failed effort to removed the legitimate president of Syria from power. That Obama should be quoted about the American civil war, which he had nothing to do with, rather than the obscene slaughter in Syria, which he personally armed and paid for---is pretty outrageous in itself...
@@johnpaval9646 ... _"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right..."_ This legendary passage from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address makes it abundantly clear that Lincoln had no doubts about the certainty of the cause, and of ultimate success. There's simply no other way to interpret his words.
_"...you resort to the usual tactic of leftists and Democrats..."_ I'm a lifelong Republican, stupid. I voted for McCain in '08, Romney in '12, and supported Kasich in '16. With every post, you underscore my assessment that you are not a very bright person.
@@frisco21 "There's simply no other way to interpret his words" is the statement of someone who has limited ability for analyzing and interpreting. You are locked into an opinion which you take for an absolute. And that is not a "very bright" thing to do. You may be a lifelong Republican, but you express yourself with the same restricted understanding of any Democrat. You're an online thug. And I despise thugs, whether online or elsewhere.
@@johnpaval9646 ... _"...you express yourself with the same restricted understanding of any Democrat."_ *Any* Democrat? Your blanket condemnation of every single Democrat is the very essence of the criticism you clumsily aimed at me: _"You are locked into an opinion which you take for an absolute."_ Talk about projection!
Exposing hypocrites like you is truly a delight. After a mere few posts, you have demonstrated that you are not only a dim bulb, but a tribal partisan hack --- a foam-at-the-mouth ideologue who is willing to condemn an entire voting demographic based exclusively on their political party identity. What a stupid, closed-minded person you are.
Except that's not the speech. It's excerpts from the speech, but it's not the speech. www.nps.gov/linc/learn/historyculture/lincoln-second-inaugural.htm
It was ahead of the time, but suppose that atomic war was abolished