Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spielberg's Lincoln Movie
Personal writing | November 16, 2012 | Garland Favorito

Posted on 11/16/2012 7:27:33 AM PST by BobNative

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-119 last
To: donmeaker

They didn’t think so..guess it’s ones’ perspective. Just like some think present taxes are low compared to say 30-40 years ago and should be raised..perspective. Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address statements still stand though—slavery was acceptable, not paying the tariffs not so much.


101 posted on 11/17/2012 9:47:03 PM PST by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

“The US did not force the southern states into the union. Rather they prevented the tiny minority of slave owners in the country from tearing apart the union.”

Honestly, it’s no use trying to argue with this kind of self delusion.


102 posted on 11/17/2012 11:32:19 PM PST by DwFry (Baby Boomers Killed Western Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: DwFry

Sorry if the facts displease you.


103 posted on 11/18/2012 12:08:36 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Indeed.


104 posted on 11/18/2012 4:29:58 AM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

To add: several conservative historians rightly show that the fusion of slaveholders and government preserved slavery, and without government support there was a likelihood that slavery would have collapsed under runaways, high enforcement costs, straight out violent resistance, and legal opposition.


105 posted on 11/18/2012 4:38:29 AM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Spare me the smugness please.

If the South wasn’t forced into the Union at gunpoint, what was the purpose of shooting all those people (most non-slave owners) with guns?

You’ve created a fantasy to support an ideology.


106 posted on 11/18/2012 9:48:56 AM PST by DwFry (Baby Boomers Killed Western Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: bagman
No, my point is that firing upon Ft Sumter was the beginning of hostilities. This was a southern action.

Again, the civil war was started by southern slaveholders.

All other points, despite their relative merit, are merely tangental.

107 posted on 11/18/2012 9:58:44 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Another liberal Obama supporter.


108 posted on 11/18/2012 6:04:07 PM PST by georgiarat (Obama, providing incompetence since Day One!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: DwFry

I think the shooting at non-slave owners with guns had something to do with the fact that they had been conscripted, formed into units and committed as units of the insurrection. Certainly there where plenty of slave owners and non-slave owners in the northern states, that absent the insurrection, there would be no need to go hunting them. Ergo, it was the insurrection, and the war begun by the rebellion that was the cause of shooting.

After the slave power’s insurrection and war was over, the shooting stopped, providing evidence that it was the insurrection and war of the rebellion that was the cause.


109 posted on 11/18/2012 9:07:44 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: DwFry

Read up on Ft. Sumter before you accuse me of making stuff up.


110 posted on 11/18/2012 9:09:33 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: georgiarat

Rather, call me one opposed to Obama and socialism, and am unwilling to drive off allies.


111 posted on 11/18/2012 9:13:27 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

The point of my response was this. The article asks us to accept as evidence that Lincoln actually supported slavery the fact that while working as a lawyer before he was President he represented a slave owner trying to recover his “property.” If that is so, then we must accept the idea that John Adams actually supported the Crown during the American Revolution because he defended British troops after the Boston Massacre.


112 posted on 11/21/2012 9:15:47 AM PST by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: BobNative

The Great Centralizer.


113 posted on 11/27/2012 9:28:41 PM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobNative

Lincoln had a Congressman arrested for criticizing his war policy and Obama wants the right to arrest any of us whenever he feels like it.


114 posted on 11/27/2012 9:30:35 PM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: free-n-TX

Daniel Day-Lewis’s portrayal of Lincoln is brilliant. You truly get the feeling you’re watching Lincoln himself. It’s uncanny. In fact the film’s overall period vibe — the grubbiness of a time when people didn’t bathe as much and travel was difficult and buildings were cold in winter — is really convincing. The movie totally sucks you in and even though it’s fairly long the time flies by. It’s like being in a dream. Unfortunately Speilberg has woven a bunch of leftist garbage into it, as you would expect. Even so, I’d say it’s worth seeing in the theater.


115 posted on 11/27/2012 10:00:36 PM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: buwaya

So why did the North fight to “preserve the Union”?


116 posted on 12/14/2012 8:35:42 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fabian

You should watch “The Confederate States of America” movie. Yes, it’s a parody. But it made some valid points such as Confederate expansion into Latin America should they have won the Civil War. It’s likely that Cuba, Puerto Rico and the like would had become states today in CSA (in an alternate universe)


117 posted on 12/14/2012 8:52:37 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

ok, thanks


118 posted on 12/14/2012 9:16:52 PM PST by fabian (" And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, and the forests will echo in laughter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Because if the South could leave, so could any other disaffected bit, and the whole thing was ripe to fall apart across any number of disputes. The loose bits would have been open to annexation or otherwise domination by foreign powers (Britain, mainly).

That was the contemporary argument, or one of them.


119 posted on 12/14/2012 10:03:17 PM PST by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-119 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson