I wouldn't go see this revisionist piece of crap even if it was free!
Posted on 11/28/2012 2:03:03 PM PST by NKP_Vet
Steven Spielberg’s film LINCOLN clearly takes the politically correct, Northern view of Lincoln and wraps it up in the shroud of the moral fight against slavery. Thus, it decides mostly to focus on Lincoln’s fight in January 1865 to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery in the United States and its territories. Though the portrayal of this fight has its nuances, it doesn’t include the extensive evidence suggesting that Lincoln could be an ambitious, secretive tyrant. It also excludes such facts that, just before the Civil War began, President Lincoln had actually expressed support for a Thirteenth Amendment to perpetuate slavery, which had just been passed under his predecessor to encourage Southern states to stay in the Union. Sadly, LINCOLN also contains a surprising amount of anachronistic foul language and a surprising lack of uplifting religious references.
(Excerpt) Read more at movieguide.org ...
And if you plan on seeing this latest politically-correct, Hollywood version of Lincoln, just remember the old axiom "History is written by the victors".
Another liberal movie to avoid - The Rum Diary. Good God that was a liberal bore.
One has to remember that there really weren’t a great flood of supporters for Lincoln, from the election in 1860, to the day he was shot. Somehow, after the shooting....Lincoln rose to a legendary lofty position.
This is a review of Lincoln the POTUS, not Lincoln the movie.
The movie clearly showed Lincoln engaging in underhanded vote-buying and it showed a scene where he admitted to extra-Constitutional activity. Many of the Republicans in the movie had issues with Lincoln. I didn’t think it glorified Lincoln at all.
However, it made the democrats look far worse.
Spielberg can go fly a kite. Pure Hollywood touchy-feely drivel. I wonder if Spielberg’s Lincoln is ever identified as a Republican? There are a lot of blacks that think he was a Democrat and the Confederacy was run by Republicans.
There’s a treasure trove of info out there on lincoln and the so-called civil war!; much of it online and personal blogs.
Anyone withe the desire for truth should have no problem finding it.
Semper Watching!
*****
bookmark
How about a study of why the 1864 Republican Party didn’t exist? They were replaced by the National Union Party which had a Democrat as VP candidate, the Republican VP Hamlin was cast out. They watered down their abolitionism to pick up support of the “War Democrats”.
I saw it last night. It surprised me because it made the Republicans, including Lincoln, the “heros”. Whether they were or not, depends on your views of the whole war.
It’s worth seeing, imho.
Just remember that Lincoln said, “If I could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves, some of the slaves, or none of them I would do it”. Lincoln was primarily interested in preserving the Union, not freeing slaves. Anything to the contrary is propaganda. Union soldiers who died by the hundreds of thousands had the same motivation, as did Confederates who were trying to preserve their way of life, not to protect slavery.
I wouldn't go see this revisionist piece of crap even if it was free!
Slavery was the issue that made the war inevitable. Both sides were right, and both sides were wrong. The Federals won. Get over it.
I enjoyed the movie.
Let’s not forget Lincoln the hypocrite.
“...whatever his philosophical leanings, Lincoln went for the cases that would support his practice. This plays out in his handling of cases related to slavery. Though Lincoln was a lifelong opponent of slavery, he would represent the interests of slave owners, such as runaway recovery, when he was paid to do so”.
Below is a review from, of all places, “Salon”.
Spielberg is a hack. Always has been, always will be.
Nothing wrong with being a hack, but hack with pretensions is the worst.
As far as this, what Dave said in 12: “Slavery was the issue that made the war inevitable. Both sides were right, and both sides were wrong. The Federals won. Get over it.” is a good summary.
As far as woulda coulda shoulda, the South ought to have freed the slaves and paid wages. Then seceded. There’d’ve been no moral basis for the North to fight and it’d probably made the Southern economy better.
I saw the movie with my wife last night and thought it was excellent. Is it an historically accurate portrayal?...kind of.. but despite any shortcomings the acting was great, the costumes and set design fabulous and the story line watchable. I had to chuckle that during the lengthy debate scene in the House of Representatives the Democrats represented the pro-slavery position while the Republicans were pushing the 13th amendment to end slavery. At least Spielberg got that part of history right.
There exists a documentary called The Secret of Oz by Bill Still, which has information vis a vis The War 1860-1865 with which neither of you may be familiar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g
This video provides a monetary history of the U.S.A. you both might find interesting (if you haven’t seen it yet). It also discusses the maneuvering by European banks after the Revolution to destroy the U.S. economy, including their involvement in The War 1860-1865.
I would be interested in hearing your opinions about the above video, which was an award winning documentary film in 2010.
Most people do not know this, but the Republican Party was founded in the state of Michigan during the 1850s with the main purpose of “abolition”, eliminating the institution of slavery, and additionally reassertion of the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S.Constitution.
Southern states vowed to secede if Lincoln was elected President - BECAUSE HE WAS A REPUBLICAN!
Imprimus, a publication of Hillsdale College, has an essay by Edward J. Erier during the month of November 2012 (Vol.41, No. 1), entitled, Is the Constitution Colorblind? This essay’s theme is about the equal protection of equal rights, which does not require equal outcomes.
In this essay Professor Erier discusses the present legal cases involving affirmative action, and how it goes back to Lincoln and the U.S.Constitution, and presents the argument that our nation’s founding was not complete until after the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the passage of the 13th Amendment.
Slavery was a side issue and not even mentioned for the first two years of the invasion of the South. Lincoln was a racist who didn’t give a damn about the black man. He thought whites were superior to blacks and wanted them shipped back to Africa. The sanitizing of Lincoln is one of the greatest
hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people. He was a tyrant who caused the deaths of a million Americans. If the South had won, he would have been hanged from the nearest tree. He was a butcher. A two-bit railroad lawyer, doing the bidding of the railroad barons who controlled his every move.
It also was NOT a CIVIL WAR. This wasn’t a war where both sides wanted to control the entire US government. One side simply wanted to leave.
*****************************************************
I believe that Southerners have been known to call it the “War of Norhtern Agreesion”.
It’s simple. The South was getting richer than the North. This war was never fought about slavery. It was fought about economics and power.
THe Republican Party was founded in the State of Wisconsin in Ripon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.