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 ...
That is not entirely true. His plan to solve the black problem included deportation of blacks to the Caribbean as well as Africa.
cisco’s work is dreck that is not even up to diLorenzo (snicker) standards.
Lincoln stayed at my ancestor’s plantation and gave my ancestor a special dispensation to use use slaves in Illinois, rented from Kentucky slave owners, for the purpose of mining salt to provide the Union Army.
The rub is, he would allow the rented slaves to escape, making his business a little part of the underground railroad, but that part of the story has been overlooked by modern day historians. It is so much easier for lazy history writers to portray him as a slave-owner (user) and therefore a villian, despite the facts to the contrary.
Right and don’t forget New Orleans.
The North spent decades in the Nineteenth Century importuning the South to free the slaves. They wanted to pay the freight to do it - but the South had plenty of shoulda, and plenty of coulda, but not an ounce of woulda. They simply wouldn’t do it.Then seceded. There’d’ve been no moral basis for the North to fight and it’d probably made the Southern economy better.
Had they freed the slaves, the North would IMHO have made accommodations on anything else. Secession wouldn’t have been necessary. No point to it.But then, the same was true of the British when Benjamin Franklin represented the colonies and proposed basically the British Commonwealth. One monarch, many Parliaments. Ultimately the British obviously came around to the conclusion that Franklin was right. About a century and a half too late. Interesting to speculate about the results of accepting Franklin’s proposal (he wasn’t the only American to propose it) might have been. No War Between the States. A lot less diversity of immigration, most likely - and probably a lot slower, more limited expansion - no Louisiana Purchase, most likely.
My biggest problem is with Steven Spielberg. I consider him to be in the Oliver Stone camp and that makes the truthfulness of ANY of the products coming from them suspect.
No, the Compromise of 1850. As for Dred Scot settling rhe issueof slavery expansion, on the contrary, it allowed a farmer to bring slaves into Iowa and work factory farms. . Kansas? That lead to a split between Douglas and the new Buchanan administration from the start. Ironically, it almost led the Republicans to throw their votes to Douglas as senator from Illinois. It did make Douglas unelectable, because the Firebreathers wouln’t forgive him. That opened the way for the Republicans in 1860.
Okay, I can see how that could mean Kansas led to the war, though it’s a rather roundabout way. Actually, I believe slavery was the Big Issue of the day, on everyone’s mind constantly and very often on their tongues. I also believe protecting it was the major motive for secession.
But here’s the rub: secession did not have to lead to war. Firing on Ft. Sumter probably did, but not necessairly the war we got. The war that was came about as a deliberate choice on the part if the North to force the South back into the union. The bent over backwards to accommodate secessionists on slavery, and slavery was absolutely not among the reasons it fought. Lincoln made that abundantly clear.
“As fir Dred Scott settlinv the issue of slavery expansion, on the contrary, it allowed a farmer to bring slaves into Iowa and work factory farms”
That’s exactly the point. It bade slaves legal property wherever they went, which means both free soil and popular sovereignty were trumped. Slavery won, in other words. It was over. Unless some abolitionist or party otherwise hostile to slavery built up enough power to overturn or bypass SCOTUS’. That is the specter haunting the South about Lincoln’s entirely northern victory. If they could out vote the South, eventually they could smack Dred down, rescind the fugitive slave law, or outlaw slavery altogether.
South Carolina could have avoided war through negotiation. Anderson forced everyone’s hand by moving into Sumter, which was not ready for a siege. Once Lincoln decided to re-supply the fort, David seems to have felt the need to take it. Davis had been manuvered into firing the first shot, which made his government technically a rebel. Lincoln’s calling for volunteers, of course, caused Virginian to leave the Union. But the decision to bring the capitol north to Richmond waas also a provocation. It would seem that there was the intention to make Washington the Capitol, since as a northern capitol it seemed indefensible.
And that was well over a hundred years ago and the union is what we live in now. We are not living in the 1860s. Rant and rave all you want but that is the reality and you benefit from it each and every day
No one suggested that the civil war was a walk in the park or a gentle affair. Your descriptions contain some hyperbole. The truth is both sides fought a long and hard war. Do not make the mistake of evaluating past wars by todays standards. War has always been a bloody business. If you think otherwise you are very confused.
This particular war was over long ago and continuing to try and fight it in an intellectual effort to keep it alive makes no sense. It is a kin to the Germans complaining about how cruel the Allies were for fire bombing Dresden
Did they have black helicopters back then?
Lincoln sitting on the porch and yelling at one of his slaves:
“Stop that G-Dam tap dancing and give me back my hat.’
Let’s get real here. The North was not fighting to end slavery. The South was fighting to preserve it. If they weren’t, then why did the Southern politicians always insist on extending it to the new states? And why did they not abolish it? It would have been a strategic master stroke. It would have removed the political barriers to Britain intervening.
Instead, Lincoln was able to outmaneuver them with the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed not a single slave.
“Spielberg is a hack. Always has been, always will be.”
As opposed to what other filmmaker? He’s clearly a genius of the medium.
What films do you base that on? Schindler’s List? Saving Private Ryan?
Genius of the medium?
He is a great craftman and coordinator — one of the best movie hacks ever.
But genius or creativity?
His best movie was Raiders of the Lost Ark.
There aren’t many good film makers around. Plenty aren’t hacks, but that doesn’t mean their movies are good.
What Spielberg film is compelling in any way?
Raiders was a work for hire with nothing of Spielberg really. It’s more of a Lucas film. Jaws, CE, E.T., Schindler’s List, A.I. Are all masterworks.
I have a low opinion of Steven Spielberg and you do not. That’s fair. We disagree, but I won’t be watching his movie anytime soon. Glad you liked it.
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.