Skip to comments.Spielberg's Lincoln Movie
Posted on 11/16/2012 7:27:33 AM PST by BobNative
click here to read article
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.
“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.
Sorry if the facts displease you.
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.
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.
Again, the civil war was started by southern slaveholders.
All other points, despite their relative merit, are merely tangental.
Another liberal Obama supporter.
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.
Read up on Ft. Sumter before you accuse me of making stuff up.
Rather, call me one opposed to Obama and socialism, and am unwilling to drive off allies.
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.
The Great Centralizer.
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.
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.
So why did the North fight to “preserve the Union”?
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)
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.