Sally Field cast in Spielberg's Lincoln (Watch out for liberals trying to steal a Republican Hero)

Actress Archives.com ^ | 9-25-2007 | Actress Archives

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Sally Field wins an Emmy and suddenly everyone wants to 'really, really like her' again. Fresh off her controversial appearance on the Emmys, when she won for Brothers & Sisters, Sally Field has been cast as Mary Todd Lincoln, the wife of Abraham Lincoln, in Steven Spielberg's long-awaited biopic of one of the most important leaders of all time. Liam Neeson has already been cast as Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln bases on Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln will center on the life of the leader in the time leading up to the Civil War as he inspired the troops of the North to fight. As E! reports, Liam Neeson has been attached to the project since way back in 2005, when it looked like Spielberg might do the flick between Munich and War of the Worlds. But the film has been postponed a number of times due to casting and scheduling conflicts. With the casting of Sally Field, Steven Spielberg's Lincoln is closer to actually happening than ever before.

Now, of course, Steven Spielberg is filming a little movie called Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, so Lincoln will have to wait. That film will be released May 22, 2008 and Spielberg has a history of doing one big summer movie and one "serious" winter movie. Jurassic Park and Schindler's List both came out in 1993 and War of the Worlds and Munich dropped in 2005. Don't be at all surprised if Spielberg drops Indiana Jones 4 and Lincoln in 2008. E! does note however that it could be tough to start Lincoln with Sally Field's Brothers & Sisters schedule. It may have to wait until her summer hiatus, but Spielberg could still get it out before the end of next year. Lincoln reteams Spielberg with Neeson from Schindler's List and Tony Kushner, the writer of Munich. It's got Oscar bait written all over it.

The 60-year-old Sally Field has a long history in television and film, recently finishing an arc on ER and being a series regular and Emmy winner now on Brothers & Sisters. Sally Field has been nominated for an Oscar twice and won both times for 1979's Norma Rae and 1984's Places in the Heart.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Again, though, you have to look at what the other side of the debate was. Why was Stephen Douglas able to accuse Lincoln of being in favor of miscegenation? Compared to every other major and the vast majority of minor political figures of the time, he was as enlightened in his attitude toward blacks as you got. Here's Frederick Douglass on the matter in 1876:

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.

[carton253]

I see these accusations brought out against Lincoln, and I just have to say that his thinking was the norm. To judge 19th century men by 21st standards is wrong, unfair, and dishonest. That is what is happening in our universities today... it is how liberals and professors are raising up a generation to think that Western Civilization is not worth saving because we did terrible things to the Indians.

Judge all in this time period, in this crisis, by the society they inhabited. Only then, can you really understand why they took the positions they did. Too many black and white judgements are made against the leaders and men on both sides of this issue.

How are you doing, Bubba Ho-Tep?

[carton253]

I would like to add one more thing to this thread. I like Sally Fields. I think she is a terrific actress and will do a great job as Mary Todd Lincoln. Spielberg’s casting is spot on.

[the OlLine Rebel]

That is very true, of course. Too bad most Founders aren’t extended the same courtesy - “don’t judge them based on the norm of the time”.

Fred Douglass was a great man, and very perceptive and forgiving, if you will. Much different from his self-acclaimed descendents of the likes of “the reverend Jackson”.

[Non-Sequitur]

The comment in the post was that Lincoln thought blacks inferior.

But when taken in context, including the parts where Lincoln states his belief that blacks were entitled the many of the same rights as white men and his consistent opposition to slavery, Lincoln's views are still very progressive for his times, and far ahead of the views on the subject of any Southern leader you care to name.

[Non-Sequitur]

When you are debating, why do you often resort to the "so's your mother" argument?

Not at all. I'm just correcting 4CJ who has obviously mistaken Abraham Lincoln with one of the early members of the Klan. Or was making a lame attempt at a slur, I'm not sure which. His suggestion that Lincoln might be at home as a Klan member is obviously ridiculous. Lincoln was for freedom for blacks while the Klan was not. Lincoln was for black sufferage while the Klan was not. In fact I imagine that just about the entire surviving confederate leadership would be more comfortable in hoods and robes than Abraham Lincoln would have.

[carton253]

LOL! If I had not been on these threads for the past few years, I might almost believe you.

But, IMHO, you do you own arguments a great disservice to resort to the "so's your mother" argument. Forrest does not deserve your shot no more than Lincoln deserved the other poster's shot.

One day, (and I am not holding my breath)on Free Republic, will be able to debate the contribution these men made without agendas. Won't that be a happy day.

Have a great day!

[Non-Sequitur]

But, IMHO, you do you own arguments a great disservice to resort to the "so's your mother" argument. Forrest does not deserve your shot no more than Lincoln deserved the other poster's shot.

But 4CJ took the shot. And I responded in kind. Had he not then I would not have mentioned Forrest at all. And if you want to criticize me for stooping to his level and fighting him in his gutter with his tactics then so be it. It might have been more effective if you had chosen to take us both to task, would it not?

[carton253]

Now, let me bring my mother into this. :>)

I can hear her now... "I'm not talking about 4CJ. I'm talking about you. If 4CJ jumped off a building, would you?"

I'm not really criticizing you. I have seen you employ the "so's your mother" argument quite frequently, and just wondered why, with your education and your ability to really frame an argument, you would stoop to such a lame tactic.

If you think I am criticizing you, please accept my apologies. I was really wanting to know why you did it.

[4CJ]

Lincoln was also a vocal opponent of the Mexican-American War. That should do it.

He was the John Murtha of his time.

[Non-Sequitur]

He was the John Murtha of his time.

You are grasping at straws aren't you.

[4CJ]

Not at all. I'm just correcting 4CJ who has obviously mistaken Abraham Lincoln with one of the early members of the Klan. Or was making a lame attempt at a slur, I'm not sure which.

I was simply pointing out that based on his own words he would fit into the Klan. Not that I have personal knowledge of such, nor am I stating that Lincoln was a member. Simply pointing out the utter hypocrisy of posters that denigrate Confederates while venerating Lincoln despite his racial positions.

His suggestion that Lincoln might be at home as a Klan member is obviously ridiculous.

And the modern Klan believes in white superiority (Lincoln's agreement documented above), and racial separation (Lincoln's agreement documented above).

Lincoln was for freedom for blacks while the Klan was not.

Freedom in another country, but not in the republic. Lincoln certainly never fought to end black laws in Illinois, nor did he fight for black equality and amalgamation - he fought against such.

In fact I imagine that just about the entire surviving confederate leadership would be more comfortable in hoods and robes than Abraham Lincoln would have.

Jefferson Davis' overseer was black, with his slaves having their own court system - Lincoln never instituted such a system, he simply paid black soldiers less. Forrest freed his slaves and they fought beside him - Lincoln wanted blacks to be slaves servants and not troops, although later he did allow them to be used as cannon fodder. As a reward for their service Lincoln again yearned to reward them with an all-expense paid trip to Panama.

[RedMonqey]

I think Jefferson Davis was a good man who had to make hard choices for a bad cause, the cause being the thoughtless destruction of free government bequeathed by the Founders,

Then that man would be Lincoln not Davis that destroyed the Nation created by the Founding Fathers that believed in the plural not singular United States of America.

Victors write the history and you bought into the fiction of the beloved Father Abraham mythos that never existed while he was alive.

[4CJ]

You are grasping at straws aren't you.

Lincoln's opposition to the war was well known. If the shoe fits ...

[x]

So circa 2050, when whites are slipping into minority status, and large segments of the populace are of recent immigrant heritage, steeped in multi-culturalism, how do you think Lincoln will be portrayed? All indications are that by then America will be far to the left of where it is today. Imagine someone in 1960 looking in the future and seeing 2007 America. Abortion-on-demand, multi-culturalism, millions of illegal aliens being coddled and given government handouts, same-sex “marriage” looming and top military officers ridiculed for not wanting homosexuals in the barracks, terrorist leaders invited to speak at Columbia (where a conservative was shouted down when he tried to speak), political correctness, speech codes, hate crime laws. Well, 2050 America will be that much further to the left compared to today. So how do you think Lincoln will be portrayed in, say, a typical textbook?

I don't know. But attitudes do tend to ebb and flow. Charles Beard in 1913 or Richard Hofstadter in 1948 were a lot more cynical about the Founders than most Americans are now.

It's noteworthy how the average American's attitude towards Washington, Lincoln, the Pilgrims and the rest of our history remained consistently positive while our population changed in the early and middle twentieth century. We went from being a country composed predominantly of Northern European Protestants to one with varied religions and roots all over Europe without spurning the nation's founders.

It's only in the last thirty years or so, that the picture has gotten ugly. A lot has changed in post-Vietnam America. I don't know whether the children of today's immigrants will carry on the older tradition. But the way that the children of Italian, Polish, Jewish, and other immigrants turned out is reassuring.

I think the country does still have much assimilative force. It's not felt as strongly in classrooms, but consider the History Channel. It gives rather a different view of our past than one would have gotten in school fifty years ago, but still, it's programs do make one proud to be an American, even a White and male American.

Every thing could still collapse, though, so I don't know the answer. But while I'm thinking over your question, let me ask you a few.

How are the Confederate Battle Flag, Jeff Davis, and Nathan Bedford Forrest going to change any of this? If things are going to hell in a handbasket, what good does the Confederate cult do us?

Indeed, how is tying George Washington and the Constitution to the Confederacy going to keep them dear to Americans? Wouldn't it have the reverse effect, especially if the country is changing in the ways you say it is?

For that matter, if you're concerned about Lincoln's reputation how is adopting the Confederate cult going to make Americans think better of him?

[RedMonqey]

Lincoln, just like fellow Republican Ronald Reagan

The Democrats would have as good a claim on RR as the Republicans have on Lincoln.

Lincoln"s second term was not elected as an Republican but as an National Union Party. The true blue Radical Republicans thought Lincoln too soft on the Rebs and select John C. Fremont as their boy.

They lost.

[RedMonqey]

Ah, yes, Never fails that a few people will disparage Lincoln on this board.

And, yes, he is my FAVORITE President and the one I respect most. Washington being my close second.

One can do that if only one glosses over the little inconviences like civil liberties and the rule of law.
And I bet FDR and the interment of tens of thousands makes him your Third favorite president?

You are gonna luv Hillary's eight years in the white house

[Non-Sequitur]

The true blue Radical Republicans thought Lincoln too soft on the Rebs and select John C. Fremont as their boy.

So I guess Fremont was the one who got that odd 692 votes cast in the 1864 election, huh? 1864 Election Results

Are you sure you're not thinking of 1856?

[Non-Sequitur]

Then that man would be Lincoln not Davis that destroyed the Nation created by the Founding Fathers that believed in the plural not singular United States of America.

I wasn't aware that the founders, like Jefferson Davis, believed in conficatory taxes, trampling state's rights by extending state militia enlistments for the duration of the war without approval of the state governments, seizing farm produce without compensation 'for the war effort', forcing private ship owners to devote large percentage of their cargo capacity for government cargo without compensation 'for the war effort', conscripting slave labor without compensation 'for the war effort', ignoring the constitution when convenient, nationalizing industries like salt and liquor, protecting slave imports in the constitution, and oh yeah, starting wars without approval of Congress.

[RedMonqey]

....even managed Lincoln?s tenor voice

WOW !!!!! YOU heard Lincoln's SPEAK?

Given he's been dead for over 150 years and the phonograph hadn't invented til more than twenty years after, you must be over 130 years old and the oldest human being alive!!!

Or an idiot....