Skip to comments.Spielberg's Lincoln Movie
Posted on 11/16/2012 7:27:33 AM PST by BobNative
click here to read article
(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.
I saw that one too. It is probably better than this movie.
Actually, the author did a heckuva lot of historical work to tie in the real history with the vampire story.
Why would ANY conservative give money to liberal Hollywood? It’s nuts. Let’s show more pride than paying the kapo to beat us.
Reagan was OK. I don’t like that he gave us amnesty for millions of illegals and the machine gun ban of 1986. His pressidential library is in California, not Illinos. Perhaps he considered himself a Californian?
Yes, yes, state's rights, industrial tarriffs, property rights, the 10th amendment, etc etc; but every single argument resolved down to slavery and the economics built upon it.
I'm with you on this - anyone who thinks it wasn't 'slavery' needs to read the Lincoln/Douglas debates... It was only the war that ended the evil of slavery and it was Lincoln that made certain that slavery was ended.
Thank God for Abraham Lincoln.
McClellan was a coward and traitor pure and simple. Furthermore, he ran against Lincoln as...a Democrat!
I'm with you on this - anyone who thinks it wasn't 'slavery' needs to read the Lincoln/Douglas debates... You're right - Thank God for Abraham Lincoln.
Another producer, writer faux historian making a buck off of reconstructed history, the Lincoln Fairy Tale. Sic semper tyrannis.
And I think you're blowing smoke. All the nuancing in the world will not cause me to ignore the obvious.
You cannot separate the tariff issue from the slavery issue, they are connected
Why did a South in which only a relative minority owned slaves go to war to keep slavery as an expression of its supposed state sovereignty? For the South, freeing the slaves was recognized to be the end of one set of familiar problems and the beginning of other problems with no clear solutions -- problems that would affect every white Southerner, not just the slave holders.
First, once the slaves were freed, how would they house, clothe, and feed themselves, and how would the South's rural plantation economy function without their labor? How would slaveholders be compensated?
Second, if empowered with the vote and civil liberties equal to whites, impoverished and ignorant freed slaves could be expected to make their influence felt, resulting in corruption, the election of unsuitable officials, and high spending and taxes. There would be much detriment to whites in general and to the property owning class in particular.
Third, the presence of a large, poor, uneducated, restive and resentful mass of freed Black slaves would give rise to an enduring race problem. Notably, the Northern states were unwilling to accept freed slaves into their own states. That was too much trouble, and trouble of a kind that the South was better equipped to deal with and deserving the burdens of as punishment of a sort of rough justice.
As it was, after the failure of Reconstruction and much turmoil and hardship, the eventual resolution for the Southern agrarian economy was a combination of sharecropping , Black farmers on small free holdings, and a large pool of menial Black servants and laborers useful to Southern whites.
Copying laws from the North, virtually all the South adopted a rigid system of Jim Crow laws and a social code that marginalized Blacks for generations. Literacy and property requirements, poll taxes, and other manipulations that severely restricted the right to vote and ended the brief era of relative Black political power in the South.
Might events have taken a better course if Lincoln had lived? Maybe, maybe not. The profound discontinuity of the Civil War changed the country and changed Lincoln, moving both toward advocating greater equality between the races, while remaining uncomfortable with the many problems of applying the principle in practice.
Thus the Civil War led Lincoln far beyond his previous views as to race, and the failure of his African colonization efforts made clear that country would have to find a new path forward that accepted the permanence of a a massive population of former Black slaves.
Yet the contours of history are not as malleable as they may seem, and it is quite possible -- even likely -- that Reconstruction under Lincoln would have failed like it did under Johnson and Grant.
What was the bunch of Yankees telling the residents of SC to do?
They were connected in the fact that the North attempted to use the slavery issue to coerce the South into paying the tariffs/taxes and the South used the slavery issue to ‘fire the Southern heart’ when it was thought that the South could not be brought into unanimity about the tariffs. Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address showed his hand. If the South paid the tariffs/taxes they could keep their slaves. According to Lincoln’s own words the horrid institution of slavery was acceptable but not paying ‘taxes’ meant war.
No, Washington was the greatest. He was "first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen"
Absolutely. Sexual slavery, economic slavery, cultural slavery, ideological slavery, etc... It all came with the false flag of freedom.
Maybe he's just tired of this ignorant neoconfederate s___t excreted month after month, year after year.
Just about everybody is at this point.
Fortunately, there are always new people coming in who still have the energy and the interest to dissect this garbage.
Whoever wrote the article has a simplistic view of politics and 19th century American history. Just about everybody who entered major party electoral politics when Lincoln did would have to live with slavery in ways that no one today has to. No one who was elected to major offices could have been a passionate and uncompromising self-professed abolitionist.
It's surprising that Illinois's (not very vigorously enforced) constitutional provision is used to attack Lincoln. Should we then assume that every politician, soldier, or citizen from a slave state was likewise tainted by the policy of his state?
Lincoln's letter to Greeley refers to preserving the union as his "paramount object" not his only intent. It was an expression of his government's policy, not of his private feelings. Obviously, Lincoln's refusal to compromise on the expansion of slavery to the territories indicates that he did have a firm position that he wouldn't compromise on, and the speculation at the time was that slavery couldn't survive without expansion.
Nor was it clear that Lincoln ever intended to "colonize all African Americans." The idea was voluntary colonization. Lincoln's expressed intention in 1865 to extend the right to vote to Black veterans indicates that there was no plan or intention to deport or expel all African-Americans.
Tariffs weren't the cause of secession or of the war. The North wasn't notably less free than the South during the war years. Hostile editors and agitators weren't treated better in the South than in the North. Lincoln didn't start the war, and he certainly didn't "personally directed key activities of the Union Army."
George Armistead's nephew Lewis took up arms against the United States. If his grandson was of the same opinion, was it scandalous or surprising if he was imprisoned? Would he have fared any better if he'd been a self-professed and active unionist in rebel territory?
Lost causers annoy me to no end.
Thank you. I was about to reference the same thing. Here’s the site for folks to invesigate. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
And losers get to write the legends.
Not sure of your point in that response, but I note that my question has yet to be responded to.
Your argument is that Fort Sumter was not fired upon on April 12, 1861?
Your assertions do not dispute my argument. Early in the war, a large portion of the sentiment in the North was to restore the Union. Certainly, there was abolitionist sentiment as well. As the war progressed, abolitionist sentiment grew.
Yes, Little Mac ran against Lincoln as Democrat. I think that we agree on this salient fact. But I don’t seem to recall McClellan’s treason.
We agree that slavery is the underlying cause, but there’s more to it. If the war is about slavery, then why did Virginia reject secession before Lincoln’s call for troops and then pass secession afterwards? The status of slavery did not change in the intervening period.
The secession of West Virginia from Virginia does not address my argument and is irrelevant.
Secession is legal, by federal amendment, by federal legislation, or even by successful court case.
The southern insurrection had none of those. The temporary union of the first continental congress became a perpetual union by the Articles of Confederation, and in turn was made more perfect by the current constitution.
Lincoln was a classical liberal. He was for lowering the burden of taxes on the working man. “The face that grows the corn should eat the corn.” He held, and in his life demonstrated that a man could work for himself for a certain number of years, then hire another to work with him for a certain number of years, then be wealthy enough to start a business. Lincoln handled over 5000 cases in his career. Consider John Edwards, former Democratic candidate for vice president: He handled 26 cases in his entire legal career. Lincoln once handled a case for a railroad, and billed them 20,000$. They refused to pay, and Lincoln took out a lien on the railroad. That would have allowed him to, with the aid of the local sheriff, to seize and sell off any assets of the railroad until the debt was paid.
Taxes on slaves were about 100%, from the point of view of the slave. Slavery endowed every slave owner with the power of the government. Unless the master chose to let the slave keep tips or money the slave earned after completing his daily tasks.
Slavery permitted rape, kidnapping, assault, and theft as a normal process. Further, the slave power enslaved white militia members, both before the war as ‘slave patrol’ to search for potential runaway slaves, and during the war as conscripts to the slave power, while slave owners were granted deferments.
Some soldiers from Georgia were conscripted, forced to fight for the insurrection, wounded, shipped home, where their state conscripted them again, and then shipped a second time to satisfy the insurrection’s endless demands for cannon fodder.
Except the tariffs were low when South Carolina pretended to secession.
We have nice parting gifts though.
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.
The revolutionary war was vastly different. No taxation without representation. Because of the distance between north america and England, the colonies could not be represented in England. The colonies had their own powers of local taxation. The government of England pretended to have the power to tax the colonies, and when that pretended power was resisted, the government of England send soldiers and marines to make war on the colonies. Only after the war started did the colonies declare independence.
The southern insurrection first declared their independence, based on slavery, though there was no effort made by the US to end slavery, or tariff, though the tariff at that time was low. Then the insurrection declared war on the US, then made war on the United States. None of those were justified, and accordingly, they could not find a single country in the world to support them, and over 40 regiments of southern men fought against the insurrection.
Jeff Davis enacted conscription before Lincoln. The southern slave power began the insurrection, with no legal authority.
Rather than execute them all for piracy, the Union was merciful. That was Lincoln’s policy.
Slavery endowed every slave owner with all powers of government. You truly replaced one tyrant a thousand miles away with a thousand tyrants one mile away.
Assault under color of authority: legal under slavery. Rape: legal under slavery.
Theft: legal under slavery.
Kidnapping: legal under slavery.
Freedom of speech forbidden: legal under slavery.
Right to keep and bear arms forbidden: legal under slavery.
Imprisonment: Legal under slavery.
Forbidden to vote: Legal under slavery.
And then, to keep all the rules of the slave owners, the slave power forced people who did not own slaves to patrol for escaped or run away slaves. When the insurrection began, men who didn’t own slaves were conscripted to support the insurrection.
I had considered going to see Lincoln....I am a big fan of Daniel Day-Lewis, although I don’t know his politics. Being from the U.K., I just assume he also leans left.
But I won’t pay to see this movie because of Speilberg. He does not need my money. I will wait patiently until I can see it on t.v.
Meanwhile, I may just read a few Lincoln biographies. I have seen Lincoln specials all day on the history channel...some had not so flattering anecdotes about him! That really piques my interest!
Machine guns are not banned, but since 1934 they have been registered with a 200$ tax. Reagan had nothing to do with that.
I have a friend who owns a Vickers 1921.
Rather it was socialist Woodrow Wilson who segregated the federal government. The Republican who was elected after Wilson. Warren G. Harding is acknowledged to be partly of African heritage.
None of which sways any Black voters today; and Harding’s supposed touch of Black ancestry is disputed, with Harding himself not knowing the truth.
New ones are and Reagan signed it. Google the Hughes amendment. Free Republic had a thread about it a while back.
I’m not supporting Hollywood either... we’re a good start...