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.
that’s right it is always important to read books about how theSouth was so abused by the evil Lincoln, who after all is a bad man for wanting to keep the union together.
The Civil War was just that....right or not the South lost and hence the union was and is preserved.
and those same southerners some how think that the south will rise again....ifit does it may look more like the welfare state that O wants us to become.
The bitchiness that is exhibited over this issue looks for all the world like Palestinians claiming that Jews have no historical roots in Jerusalem....it is old and boring and oh so beside the point
As he defended a freedwoman and her children threatened with a return to slavery and abolitionists in the "underground railroad" who harbored runaway slaves. Lincoln dealt mostly with technical issues of the law and his performance was regarded as weak, unispired, inadequate. That doesn't justify his taking the case, but he was doing what lawyers do -- if they only represent clients who are innocent and morally without reproach, they wouldn't last long.
The term “civil war” does not imply opponents are fighting for control of the whole. It merely means a war within one country, as opposed to a foreign war.
The war was by no means inevitable. I have no idea whatsoever why anyone would think it was, unless they were general fatalists.
We sure have some wackadoos on FR these days (I’m not referring to you, Tublecane).
“The South was getting richer than the North”
That’s almost right, but I’d put it this way. The South could’ve thrived alone, whereas without the tariff northern industry would’ve collapsed. A free trade zone in the South was deadly to Republican interests, which is why they made their stand at the major Atlantic seaport at Charleston and why in hus first innaugural Lincoln gave them a choice between taxes and war.
Black slavery was the heart of the struggle between the states. As the history of “Bleeding Kansas” attests, the issue could not be resolved through the ballot. The South demanded that its “system” be allowed everywhere in the Union. To avoid session in 1850, the North —and at this time this included the Border states—agreed to split the difference, granting the southern half of the Mexican Cession to be slave territory, along with Texas but excepting Southern California. They also passed the Fugitive Law Act, which was as blatant a violation of States Rights as one can imagine, because its violated the principle that the State was the basic political unit of the Union. Under the Constitution, the State was the primary protector of the rights of its inhabitants. So the South was willing to violate the sovereignty of the northern states in the interest of its “Peculiar Institution.”
“Southern states vowed to secede if Lincoln was elected President - BECAUSE HE WAS A REPUBLICAN!”
They may have so vowed, but in reality it was more than Lincoln winning and being a Pub. He won without carrying a single southern state, which ominously foretold of future northern domination of Washington.
But Kansas was resolved through the ballot. Arguing it presaged the war holds about as much water as saying John Brown revealed the North’s secret plans.
You bring up the Missouri Compromise, but for some strange reason fail to mention that it worked and along with Dred Scott it practically settled the issue of the westward expansion or nonexpansion of slavery. Despite countless history books, that was not at issue. Slavery had nowhere to go, at least not in that direction.
As for the Fugitive Slave Act, it did override state prerogatives, but it was not destructive of state rights or the federal system as you imply. The federal government had various powers wand no one of them makes the states slaves to it. Especially not federal powers that people generally assent to, and despite abolitionists the fugitive slave law was not unpopular. Republicans in fact proposed strengthening it through constitutional ammendment.
When they make that movie i'll go see it. The last movie i paid to see was Act of Valor.
LOL! The Michigan origination claim I read was cited by Hillsdale College, which is in Michigan! No bias there, right? /sarc
“The founding event of the Republican Party is a matter of some dispute. Some point to a mass meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin in March 1854; others cite a later gathering in Jackson, Michigan. In any event, there appeared to be a spontaneous outpouring of anger following passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Large public meetings were held in numerous Northern communities, some of which used the term “Republican.””
The above is per an internet site: United States History
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h141.html
Where ever the GOP originally sprung-up, it was certainly driven by the horrors of slavery.
The VOLUNTARY UNION of states was NEVER INTENDED to be a Union that a state could not get out of if they thought their interests were not being met. Secession was a RIGHT of each and every state and every Founding Father believed in the rights of the states to leave the VOLUNTARY UNION if they so wished. This is documented, historical fact! Jefferson would have rolled over his grave if he had known a two-bit railroad lawyer, with hardly any education whatsover, started a damn war to FORCE the states to stay in a VOLUNTARY UNION. Lincoln destroyed the country that our Founding Fathers fought and died for. Anyone with a basic understanding of American history and a knowledge of the founding documents knows that Lincoln was a tyrant, a big government socialist, who consolidated ALL POWER in Washington, DC, something the Founding Fathers fought so hard to prevent from ever happening.
Really? Well then, show me where in the U.S.Conatitution secession is mentioned.
http://www.amazon.com/War-Crimes-Against-Southern-Civilians/dp/158980466X
Mr. Cisco’s flawlessly documented expose of Union Army war crimes rips the carefully constructed facade off Lincoln’s “Army of Emancipators.” Far from being an army of liberators, Union troops burned, raped, ravaged, and terrorized civilians from east to west. The brutality long overshadowed by federally-sponsored propaganda of Andersonville and Fort Pillow is at last revealed by newspaper accounts, letters, and diaries, many from Washington’s own National Archives.
“We believe in a war of extermination,” said Union Brigadier General Lane, whose heroic exploits include the arrest and deaths of wives and teenaged girls whose only crime were blood ties to Confederate guerrillas, the expulsion of tens of thousands of civilians from whole Missouri counties and the complete destruction of their property.
General Sherman deliberately turned his back as men pillaged Georgia cities, even allowing them to exhume graves in search of valuables. Free African-Americans as well as southern whites suffered the loss of homes and property, many their lives. The arrival of the northern army of liberation also meant rape and abuse for women of color. Regardless of color or gender, no southerner was spared.
Mr. Cisco’s scholarly work is a must-read for serious students of the war and professional historians. Politically correct history cannot hide the sins of the past, and a true examination of facts must occur before complete understanding of America’s most tragic war can take place. Five stars.
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.
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.