Skip to comments.Spielberg's Lincoln Movie
Posted on 11/16/2012 7:27:33 AM PST by BobNative
click here to read article
The man has written US history books that have wound up on the NYT bestseller lists. He is highly thought of here on these boards and acknowledged to be one of the nation’s best conservative historians. Although I agree that more in depth discussion is in order I think his opinion should not be dismissed lightly. What, pray tell, are your qualifications?
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America.”
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the “United States of America,” is hereby dissolved.
Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.
Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 1.
I was hoping you would weigh in. Have you seen the movie?
Not yet. I did see “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter” which was pretty good. I’ll get to this. My gripe though is that the film looks at, I think, the wrong period of Lincoln’s life. It should have covered 1862-1864.
Lincoln was a Statist. Nuff said.
Slavery was dying a slow death and it would have gone away. That being said, it was a good thing. However, ask anyone from SC about the Civil War and they will tell you, “We did not want a bunch of Yankees telling us what to do!”
Slavery was made legal again in the 1960s.
Would anyone condone a person who sent the equivalent of 8,000,000 men today to death for ant reason short of mass murder?
Lincoln was a foul human being who like Obama could not accept people who did not bow down to him. He suspended habeus corpus illegally, instituted an income tax illegally, and directed atrocities to be committed against the southern people. He condone the rape of southern women by Sherman’s army. He should be considered a war criminal rather than an honored President. But, winners get to spin their own truths. Just ask Obama.
No, but I have noticed how otherwise good FReepers who are also Lost Cause Losers default to libtard-type reasoning when it comes to these discussions.
(To the tune of John Brown's Body)
"We'll hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree..."
And the losers get to write their mythologies.
By that logic, it makes no sense that the republican party is fighting to keep taxes low on the top 1% -- since almost ALL of us conservatives do NOT FALL into that top 1%. So clearly conservatives aren't fighting to stop tax increases.
And if makes no sense that liberal men fight for abortion, since none of them will ever get an abortion. So they must not be fighting for abortion.
And since 49 states of us don't live in Arizona, certainly none of us could be fighting to uphold Arizona's illegal immigration laws. We don't have anything to do with them....
If your state's economy was based on coal mining, you might well fight for the rights of coal users, even though you don't use coal, or mine coal. Likewise, the states whose economy was based on slavery would fight for slavery, even though most of the individuals in that state did not personally own slaves.
"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.
"Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg" (October 7, 1858), p. 226.
"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 492.
"I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 255.
I want to see Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. I presume that it isn’t intended to provide much useful history information. I just like Vampire movies....
Wow. There’s an unbiased review of Lincoln. Not.
That is nonsense.
Only someone w/ Lincoln's moral authority could have seen the US through that crisis.
Nor was he himself spared from the death roll of heros.
Ending slavery in this country was a necessary step for our ultimate evolution, but the war was made inevitable by the southern slaveholders and no one else.
The war was started by the southern slaveholders and no one else.
I must respectfully disagree. I think that the matter is a little more complicated.
First, the Southern Democratic candidate in the 1860 election was John C Breckinridge of Kentucky. He had become a fervent States Rights advocate in the 1850s, but he owned no slaves (Bell of Tennessee, the candidate of the Constitutional Union Party, who owned slaves, attempted to make an issue of this fact, arguing that he could protect slavery better than someone who did not own any). If slavery is the only reason, then why are the Southern Democrats nominating someone who doesn’t own any?
Second, Virginia, at a secession convention, voted by a 2-to-1 margin on April 4, 1961, to not to secede. Fort Sumter is fired upon on April 12. Lincoln called for troops to be furnished by the non-seceded states on Apirl 15, and on April 17, the secesion convention voted to secede, subject to a state-wide referendum, which approved secession in May.
The status of slavery had not changed between April 4 and April 17. Virginia’s actions indicate that, while the central question, slavery in itself was not the only issue.
You are correct - no declaration of war was required. Lincoln went to great pains to frame the “Unpleasantness” as a rebellion, thereby, among other things, obviating the need to declare war.
No, you over-simplify the matter. Among the criticisms of Union generals McClellan and Buell was that they were soft on slavery and perhaps had intentions of restoring the Union to the status quo ante bellum. Some soldiers expressed dismay when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, arguing that they were fighting to preserve the Union rather than fighting to free the slaves (and they probably used a pejorative not acceptable in polite society).
Certainly as the war progressed, the overthrow of slavery gained importance.
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.