Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Honest Abe Palpatine
LewRockwell.com ^ | May 25 | Bob Murphy

Posted on 05/25/2002 3:14:07 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist

I?ve decided to jump on the bandwagon and write about the latest Star Wars movie, Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Before I get going, the usual disclaimer: This is not a movie review per se, but if you plan to watch the movie and haven?t yet done so, do not continue reading this article; I will spoil the movie and you will hate me. (Also, I?m going to only use "facts" as established in the movies themselves.) Let me lay my cards on the table: I think George Lucas is an absolute genius. Not only did he invent the Star Wars universe ? with noble knights employing a mystical Force, valiant rebels battling evil storm troopers, formidable warriors succumbing to the corrupting temptations of power, and one of the best villains in fiction (Darth Vader) ? but he also knew how amazing it would be to create the middle three movies first. In this context, I confidently state that Episode II is one of the best American movies ever made. It probably falls short of, say, The Empire Strikes Back, but that?s only because TESB is one of the best American movies ever made.

Now then, some qualifications: There is an undue amount of exposition in the first half of the movie, and the guy playing Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) could have taken acting lessons from me. The cutesy stuff with C-3PO was a bit much, though infinitely better than the dialogue coming out of Jar Jar Binks in the previous episode. Finally, some of the less exciting action scenes (in particular when Anakin and Padmé first land on Geonosis) could have been cut a bit too, in order to whittle the movie down to two hours.

But other than that, the movie was incredible. Lucas has an amazing ability to tell a complicated story involving subtle politics and intrigue in a way that can hold the attention of a child. (This in itself is a masterful feat.) Episode II also brings back the sense of interstellar adventure that was lacking in the last installment (which focused on planetside events). Finally, we get to see the Jedi in their full glory as the guardians of peace and justice. Up till now, we?ve never really seen how they carry out "police" duties (such as tracking down Senator Amidala?s would-be assassin and rescuing Obi-Wan from Count Dooku); even Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan?s mission to Naboo in Episode I was more analogous to that of ambassadors and diplomats rather than cops. The light saber battle between Dooku and a slight, normally pacifistic fellow, is alone worth the ticket price.

I could go on and on, but I?ll stop. I?d like to take the remainder of this article to address some of the commentary I?ve seen on the movie.

First, Lucas is certainly not labeling separatists as treasonous terrorists, okay you secessionists out there? Give the guy some credit; the first three movies, after all, focus on the brave rebels resisting the Empire. In the original Star Wars, Vader smears Princess Leia as a traitor, so unless you think Lucas wants us to side with Vader, then please hold off your judgments about the treatment of separatists until Episode III.

It is entirely clear that Palpatine (who is, shall we say, closely aligned with the evil Darth Sidius) represents not only Adolf Hitler (because both were elected Chancellor and then voted emergency powers which culminated in absolute dictatorship) but also Abraham Lincoln (who used a Grand Army of the Republic to first smash his own separatists and then start an Empire). The closing scenes of Episode II ? where we see the clone army of the Republic, with its unmistakable resemblance to the storm troopers of later episodes, and hear the ominous music of the Empire ? should wake up even the dullest American teenager to the dangers of standing armies being used against domestic citizens. Yes, some of the politicians utter pro-democratic garbage during the movie, but to throw out the movie on these grounds would be like condemning 1984 since Orwell was a socialist.

(For those of you Confederacy supporters who are still skeptical: Recall that in Episode I, Qui-Gon tells young Anakin that, "I didn?t come here to free slaves." Rather than use his powers to free the boy he believes to be the Chosen One who the prophesy says will restore balance to the Force, Qui-Gon wins Anakin?s freedom by wagering on a pod race.

On this point, I?ve also heard some speculation that Qui-Gon was serving the Dark Side, and intentionally let himself be killed in order to allow the less competent Obi-Wan train Anakin. Well, we can?t know for sure until Episode III, but let?s keep in mind that Qui-Gon?s judgment was right; it isn?t Luke Skywalker who kills the Emperor in Return of the Jedi, folks.)

Now, at this point some of you may be wondering, "How can Bob possibly be right, since so many critics have panned the movie?" Well, let me put it this way: The critics are ignorant jackasses who want to sound sophisticated by criticizing a movie that "the masses" love.

This is nowhere better demonstrated than this review, in which Jonathan V. Last offers "the case for the Empire." (In case you think I?m being too uptight, I emailed Last and he said his review was more than half serious.) Among other ridiculous arguments, Last offers this gem:

But the most compelling evidence that the Empire isn?t evil comes in "The Empire Strikes Back" when Darth Vader is battling Luke Skywalker. After an exhausting fight, Vader is poised to finish Luke off, but he stays his hand. He tries to convert Luke to the Dark Side with this simple plea: "There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you. . . . Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." It is here we find the real controlling impulse for the Dark Side and the Empire. The Empire doesn?t want slaves or destruction or "evil." It wants order.

Inasmuch as part of the Emperor?s unfortunate-but-necessary crackdown involves using the Death Star to blow up an entire planet (which Last defends on the grounds that "they" were traitors who had the audacity to lie to their oppressors!), we can only conclude that Last would just as well excuse the actions of Stalin and Hitler. After all, Hitler too promised everlasting peace and order, once those disrupting social life were eliminated.

But even this is too cute; the Emperor is obviously evil. Episodes I and II show us how this cunning individual engineers first a trade embargo, then a secessionist movement, in order to become the most powerful ruler in the galaxy.

And Sidius certainly doesn?t desire power in order to benevolently impose "order" on the galaxy. Remember the sadistic glee with which he attacks Luke in Return of the Jedi.

No, the Emperor is plainly evil; this fact could not be clearer. Yes, part of the genius of Star Wars is its sophisticated morality, showing that all of us have a Dark Side that must be resisted.

But there is another theme, even more basic: There are some truly evil individuals, and they are constantly plotting to take over. Don?t be fooled by their rhetoric.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: dixielist
Lincoln was very clear during that scene when Palpatine was speaking to the Senate. Not just the "grand army of the republic" line, but more so the main theme indicated in that speech - that the republic had endured as one united for a thousand years. Maintaining the union was the speech's rhetorical theme as well as Lincoln's, though true motives appeared in neither.
1 posted on 05/25/2002 3:14:07 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: billbears;shuckmaster;4conservativejustices;twodees;Colt .45;stainlessbanner;WhowasGustavusFox;
Dixie bump.
2 posted on 05/25/2002 3:17:06 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Dixie bump.

Lincoln-hating dump.

3 posted on 05/25/2002 3:30:00 PM PDT by kezekiel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
I didn't think Hitler at all when seeing Episode II, but I most certainly DID think of Abraham Lincoln.

"We don't want to be in your Republic anymore."
"Then you will be MADE to be in the Republic. This violence is for your own good, nay, the good of us all."

So now we're all slaves. Thanks Abe.

4 posted on 05/25/2002 3:34:32 PM PDT by Jonathon Spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
I think it is safe to say that those words coming from Chancellor Hitler's lips were a bit more disingenuous than when they were uttered by President Lincoln.
5 posted on 05/25/2002 3:38:06 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kezekiel
Interesting. Now exactly where did I ever post hatred of Lincoln on this thread? Nowhere.

To the contrary, I simply posted an article with some interesting commentary about the Lincoln elements of the Palpatine character in the latest star wars movie. I think it is indisputable that at least some elements exist. I certainly noticed them and know several others who did as well. I don't see anything wrong with discussing them, leading me to question what your point is.

Speaking of shared elements, I do find it interesting that your ilk always arives to shout "Lincoln hater" after practically every attempt anybody makes to discuss anything less than blind worship of the man, only to depart almost as quickly as they arived without adding any substance to the dialogue. It's practically identical to another tactic we conservatives often faced not to long ago from the left.

Surely you remember the main line of a certain former president's propaganda ministry and defense squad during his troubles: yell "Clinton hater" at them and ignore everything else.

6 posted on 05/25/2002 3:48:29 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
I think it is safe to say that those words coming from Chancellor Hitler's lips were a bit more disingenuous than when they were uttered by President Lincoln.

Yes, in their own context. But Palpatine's speech on the preservation of the republic as a Union was inescapably Lincolnian, including the Lincolnian elements of deception.

"If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist." - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

7 posted on 05/25/2002 3:53:50 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
1. I saw either LR or Anti-War.com doing this peice the second the words "Grand Army of the Republic" were uttered in a preview.

2. Had you or the author of this piece seen the movie the whole article falls apart.

Chacellor Palpatine set up the entire situation. He ordered the creation of the clones.
At the end, it was revealed that the Rebel Jedi, Lord Dooku, worked for the Sith Lord, who also happens to be... Palpatine.

Palpatine's agents created teh insurrection, pluss both armies.

As for the rest of this assinine piece, comparing the GAR of the movie to the Civil War is silly. The citizen soldiers who violunteered and/or were drafted are very different from the clones. The same holds for the Rebel army. I woyuld never call the Confederate infantryman an automaton, but following the (il)logic of the article the author does.

8 posted on 05/25/2002 4:36:26 PM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
I'm not sure what you mean by Lincoln's deception, as he made it rather clear that he would uphold his obligation as President of the US to maintain the union. I don't believe he had any intentions to do so, with the purpose of becoming a dictator and overthrowing the Constitution.
9 posted on 05/25/2002 4:38:17 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
I don't believe he had any intentions to do so, with the purpose of becoming a dictator and overthrowing the Constitution.

Are outcomes important, or only intentions?

10 posted on 05/25/2002 4:49:16 PM PDT by Jonathon Spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jonathon Spectre
President Lincoln neither intended, nor by his actions, become a dictator, or overthrow the Constitution.
11 posted on 05/25/2002 5:03:27 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
"Episode II is one of the best American movies ever made." ...."(Hayden Christiensen) could have taken acting lessons from me." WAIT A MINUTE! How can a movie wherein the lead actor can't act be "one of the best American movies ever"? Here's MY take, if anybody cares: Episode II is a pretty good movie, but for one reason only- it has jaw-dropping special effects. The battle at the end is grander than anything Lucas has attempted before. But the dialogue is hideous, the acting (except for Ewan MacGregor, who has Alec Guiness DOWN) is infomercial quality. OK, it is better than The Phantom Menace, but it lacks ANY emotional impact. I blame it on Lucas being a great tech-head but a lousy director. Don't know how many agree with this, but the only time Star Wars ever brought a tear to my eye was the end of "Return of the Jedi". You know, the only film in the series Lucas DIDN'T direct (Richard Marquand, wasn't it?). Compare an emotional rollercoaster like The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring to Attack of the Clones, and maybe you'll see what I mean. (Can't wait for The Two Towers!)
12 posted on 05/25/2002 5:08:43 PM PDT by Burr5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
President Lincoln neither intended, nor by his actions, become a dictator, or overthrow the Constitution.

Lincoln was a politician. Winning an election and maintaining his office and its powers were his intentions. The consequences of pursuing those intentions and the way he pursued them resulted in his violating of the constitution with his actions.

13 posted on 05/25/2002 5:16:28 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
1. I saw either LR or Anti-War.com doing this peice the second the words "Grand Army of the Republic" were uttered in a preview.

I too was waiting for somebody to do it almost immediately after I saw the film. Grand army of the republic wasn't the line that did it though. It was the 1000 years of union line.

2. Had you or the author of this piece seen the movie the whole article falls apart.

A bit presumptuous, don't you think? I've seen the movie. Have you?

Chacellor Palpatine set up the entire situation. He ordered the creation of the clones. At the end, it was revealed that the Rebel Jedi, Lord Dooku, worked for the Sith Lord, who also happens to be... Palpatine.

No kidding! Hence my earlier reference - the cover motive was maintaining the union, the real motive was elsewhere, and the result was consolidating power in the executive.

As for the rest of this assinine piece, comparing the GAR of the movie to the Civil War is silly. The citizen soldiers who violunteered and/or were drafted are very different from the clones.

Yet again, you seem to have missed the entire point of both the article and the movie. The comparison has nothing to do with the composition of the army or its conduction (at least yet). It's all in the way Palpatine conducted himself - his rhetorical motives versus his real motives, and the result of his exercise - consolidating power in the executive.

If you missed that, you must have been sleeping through the entire speech scene. Either that, or you are angry about the inclusion of indisputably Lincolnian motifs in the character of Palpatine during that scene, and therefore resort to an escape alternative of (1) attacking the people who point it out and (2) diverting attention from it by focusing on unrelated details elsewhere that were not included in the original analogy to begin with by either Lucas or the author of that article.

14 posted on 05/25/2002 5:26:27 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
I'm not sure what you mean by Lincoln's deception, as he made it rather clear that he would uphold his obligation as President of the US to maintain the union.

He adopted that "obligation" because of political and economic interests in the union's continuity itself, prominent among those interests being personal political power and economic protectionism. But rather than concede other interests, he conducted his campaign against secession around what was, as Tocqueville put it 30 years earlier, the "borrowed name" of the maintaining the Union per se. That is where the deception lies.

I don't believe he had any intentions to do so, with the purpose of becoming a dictator and overthrowing the Constitution.

Intentions and their actualization are two entirely different things.

15 posted on 05/25/2002 5:33:00 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
A bit presumptuous, don't you think? I've seen the movie. Have you?
Yes. Last Friday night, 11 PM Showing on 64th and Second.

No kidding! Hence my earlier reference - the cover motive was maintaining the union, the real motive was elsewhere, and the result was consolidating power in the executive.

Lincoln did not create the rebellion. The fighting armed rebellion (see sedition) commenced before he was sworn in.
Unless you think that Lincoln had some deal with the South Carolina Legislature, the analogy fails. If you do, you are well into the conspiracy zone.

It's all in the way Palpatine conducted himself - his rhetorical motives versus his real motives, and the result of his exercise - consolidating power in the executive.

Palpatine rhetoric (I don't want this authority and will return it) was not what gave him the power. The vote occured before he even spoke to the Senate. Moreover, it was Palpatine's treasonous machinachations that gave him the power.

If you missed that, you must have been sleeping through the entire speech scene. Either that, or you are angry about the inclusion of indisputably Lincolnian motifs in the character of Palpatine during that scene, and therefore resort to an escape alternative of (1) attacking the people who point it out and (2) diverting attention from it by focusing on unrelated details elsewhere that were not included in the original analogy to begin with by either Lucas or the author of that article.

Only someone who considers Lincoln a villain would read into the speeches what you do.
It is a rohschat (sp?) test. For Neo-confederates, the symbolism is clear.

Unfortunately, you are using a leftist technique of deconstructing the work to suit your political ends. Lucas has made it very clear that the fall of the Republic is only loosely based on the fall of the Roman Republic.

16 posted on 05/25/2002 5:40:27 PM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Lincoln took many unpopular positions which cost him elections.

Lincoln opposed the Mexican war (some warmonger) and lost his Congressional seat for it.
Lincoln opposed slavery and lost his Senatorial race to Stephan Douglas.

Finally, Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction were far less heavy-handed than those of the Radical Republicans. He wanted to give up power andadmit the Southern states quickly.

17 posted on 05/25/2002 5:44:17 PM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Lincoln did not create the rebellion.

You are still missing the entire analogy. Re-read my previous post.

The fighting armed rebellion (see sedition) commenced before he was sworn in.

Lincoln was sworn in on March 4, 1861. The first formal acts of armed warfare did not occur for another month. Lincoln launched a fleet of warships tasked to fight their way into Fort Sumter for the purpose of reinforcing its garrison on or about April 6, 1861. Confederates caught word of Lincoln's plan and took the fort on April 12, 1861. Lincoln's fleet arrived on April 13, 1861, too late to do anything.

Unless you think that Lincoln had some deal with the South Carolina Legislature, the analogy fails.

No, as that was not the analogy to begin with. Had you read the article, you would know that. But instead, unable to deal with the fact that strong Lincolnian elements appeared during Palpatine's speech, you launched into a diatribe in which you created that alternative analogy of straw in order to divert attention from the actual one made in the article.

If you do, you are well into the conspiracy zone.

Surely I would not be deeper into the conspiracy zone than a person such as yourself who constructs his own false analogies and assigns them to his opponents so that he may replace their valid analogies with something easier to combat in argument, and all of this for the purpose of allowing himself to avoid the reality that strong Lincolnian themes appeared in the speech of one of the great villians of movie history.

Palpatine rhetoric (I don't want this authority and will return it) was not what gave him the power.The vote occured before he even spoke to the Senate.

Again you are constructing a creature of straw with which to joust. The real analogy, not the straw conspiracy one you have created, was drawn between Palpatine's appeal to the union of the republic itself in opposition to the secessionist movement he created. Also, if you had watched the movie while you were in attendance there last Friday night, you would know that the motion itself was prearranged, again on an appeal to the union and its "needed" army.

Moreover, it was Palpatine's treasonous machinachations that gave him the power.

No, they merely facilitated it.

Only someone who considers Lincoln a villain would read into the speeches what you do.

No, as I don't consider Lincoln to be a villain. Rather, he was a politician. It is a rohschat (sp?) test. For Neo-confederates, the symbolism is clear.

On the flip side, it could similarly serve as a test for those who view Lincoln as a "greatness" beyond his historically skilled and inescapably flawed person. For Lincoln worshipers, the symbolism is willfully ignored.

Unfortunately, you are using a leftist technique of deconstructing the work to suit your political ends.

Am I? Cause I have readily identified several propaganda techniques commonly employed by the left (i.e. the construction of straw men) in your own attempts to discredit, or more appropriately distract from the analogy of clear Lincolnian elements in Palpatine's speech. That would seem to indicate that you, rather than myself, are currently engaged in the very techniques you speak of.

Lucas has made it very clear that the fall of the Republic is only loosely based on the fall of the Roman Republic.

Indeed, but that fact bears little relevance to and certainly does not exclude him from drawing upon historical motifs from elsewhere.

18 posted on 05/25/2002 6:05:01 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Lincoln took many unpopular positions which cost him elections.

Yet to an even greater degree, he crafted his politics to win them.

Lincoln opposed slavery and lost his Senatorial race to Stephan Douglas.

Untrue. If you recall back in 1858, senators did not run for election. The state legislatures picked them.

So where then did the debates with Stephen Douglas come from? Quite simply, they were campaign appearanced made in attempt to win seats in the legislature for each figure's respective political party. As for those debate appearances, Lincoln was by far the bigger "waffler" of the two, tuning his message carefully to his audiences. He changes positions to his audience between stops so much that Douglas openly accused him in later debates of contradicting himself between appearances.

Finally, Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction were far less heavy-handed than those of the Radical Republicans.

Yes, but Lincoln was securely in his second term when the time for "reconstruction" emerged. He was not up for election any more.

19 posted on 05/25/2002 6:11:53 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
I see, you believe President Lincoln fought to maintain the Union for personal reasons. I'll grant you your cynicism, but I must strongly disagree. You really should read more history, and I don't mean pseudo-history.
20 posted on 05/25/2002 6:15:50 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist;stainlessbanner;wafflehouse;archy;aomagrat;Moose4;ConfederateMissouri;Ligeia...
Tyrant Ping!
21 posted on 05/25/2002 7:23:18 PM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
I see, you believe President Lincoln fought to maintain the Union for personal reasons.

Not personal reasons. Political reasons.

I'll grant you your cynicism

Not cynicism. Just accuracy.

but I must strongly disagree.

It's your right to do so and I am not going to stop you.

You really should read more history, and I don't mean pseudo-history.

By all means, take your own advice. I reached my conclusions about Lincoln by relying heavily on primary historical sources. Most modern sources give what I call pop history (i.e. the James McPherson brand) and it's almost always tilted heavily toward Lincoln. The historical Lincoln was a politician, not a diety.

22 posted on 05/25/2002 8:36:12 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: GOPcapitalist
I see, you believe President Lincoln fought to maintain the Union for political reasons. I'll grant you your cynicism, but I must strongly disagree. You really should read more history, and I don't mean pseudo-history. If you have been reading primary sources, you need to be more discriminating.
24 posted on 05/25/2002 9:46:21 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
I see, you believe President Lincoln fought to maintain the Union for political reasons.

Yep. Now you got it.

I'll grant you your cynicism,

No, not cynicism. Just historical accuracy.

but I must strongly disagree.

Again, that is your right and I am not going to try to stop you.

You really should read more history, and I don't mean pseudo-history.

Right back at you. I've verse myself well enough in historical matters and continue to do so when time permits. You on the other hand seem to have read just enough to permit you to adopt an extremely narrow view of it, beyond which you have willfully closed yourself off to any further readong. But inescapably, that's your choice, not mine.

If you have been reading primary sources, you need to be more discriminating.

Thanks but no thanks. Doing so would only limit me to the preset and historically inaccurate viewpoint you have adopted for yourself, all the while rendering yourself unable to escape it by the very same exercise you urge me to adopt.

25 posted on 05/25/2002 10:50:32 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Thanks but no thanks. Doing so would only limit me to the preset and historically inaccurate viewpoint you have adopted for yourself, all the while rendering yourself unable to escape it by the very same exercise you urge me to adopt.

I'm glad to find you have an open mind.

26 posted on 05/25/2002 11:05:15 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Informed persons realize that Lincoln's declaration of war on his own country based on illegitimate and unfounded grounds was only the first step toward the dismantling of the laws and Constitution upon which the nation was erected in the first place. Thanks to this filthy violation of American civilization, we now have few sovereignty rights as far as states are concerned and even less individual rights, since once the breach had been made in state's rights the next logical attack would be on our sacred individual rights and liberties. In short, we citizens are the modern equivalent of chattel slaves, only this time the government owns us body and soul and not private individuals. Hell, we don't even get time to sing and dance in the fields at the end of the day. Thanks, "Father" Ape.
27 posted on 05/26/2002 12:16:33 AM PDT by rebelsoldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
[Lincoln did not create the rebellion]

Yes, he did. There was no rebellion and he couldn't stretch his constitutional powers to cover waging war over secession, so he called the secession of the states a rebellion so that he would have the pretext for waging a war. You're the vicitm of an indoctrination, rather than the recipient of an education, kid.

28 posted on 05/26/2002 6:44:26 AM PDT by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
It is entirely clear that Palpatine (who is, shall we say, closely aligned with the evil Darth Sidius) represents not only Adolf Hitler (because both were elected Chancellor and then voted emergency powers which culminated in absolute dictatorship) but also Abraham Lincoln (who used a Grand Army of the Republic to first smash his own separatists and then start an Empire).

Well, let's review the Big Lie here: accusing Lincoln of forming an army in order to "smash his own separatists" (as if the rebels were really rebelling against Lincoln, rather than the United States of America) and then, incredibly, your accusing him of "start[ing] an Empire," when he was on record as opposing the imperialist Mexican War, when he was clearly agonized by the Civil War, and when he was assassinated less than a week after the end of the war--hardly enough time to "start an empire."

If it were not for the courage and steadfastness of this one man, who can say whether we would even have a country now? However, I've been hearing Dixie agitprop against Lincoln for so long, forgive me if I can't simply be clinical about it.

And I'm sure you had nothing against Lincoln personally, you just think he was a freedom-hating, hypocritical tyrant who laid the seeds for liberty's destruction.

"What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, every where. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors." --Abraham Lincoln, September 11, 1858 Speech at Edwardsville

29 posted on 05/26/2002 9:19:59 AM PDT by kezekiel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
I write
The fighting armed rebellion (see sedition) commenced before he was sworn in.

GOPCapitalist responded:
,/I> Lincoln was sworn in on March 4, 1861. The first formal acts of armed warfare did not occur for another month. Lincoln launched a fleet of warships tasked to fight their way into Fort Sumter for the purpose of reinforcing its garrison on or about April 6, 1861. Confederates caught word of Lincoln's plan and took the fort on April 12, 1861. Lincoln's fleet arrived on April 13, 1861, too late to do anything.

You are correct. I changed what I was saying midsentence and failed to proofread my post. I meant to write:
The armed rebellion (see sedition) commenced before he was sworn in.
This is a simple fact. Southern Militia stormed Federal armories before Lincoln was sworn in. Regardless of the date, this was no less sedition than the actions of John Brown.

No, as that was not the analogy to begin with. Had you read the article, you would know that. But instead, unable to deal with the fact that strong Lincolnian elements appeared during Palpatine's speech, you launched into a diatribe in which you created that alternative analogy of straw in order to divert attention from the actual one made in the article.

1. There were only Lincolnian elements for those who equate Lincoln with Democratic Tyranny. I think that the speech more clearly connotes speaches by Pompey and Caesar.

Again you are constructing a creature of straw with which to joust. The real analogy, not the straw conspiracy one you have created, was drawn between Palpatine's appeal to the union of the republic itself in opposition to the secessionist movement he created.

Thank you. Lincoln created no secessionist movement.

Also, if you had watched the movie while you were in attendance there last Friday night, you would know that the motion itself was prearranged, again on an appeal to the union and its "needed" army.

Yes, and had you watched the movie, you would know that the enter seccession and the armies were created by Palpatine and his protoge, Dooku. On the flip side, it could similarly serve as a test for those who view Lincoln as a "greatness" beyond his historically skilled and inescapably flawed person. For Lincoln worshipers, the symbolism is willfully ignored.

You see Palpatine as Lincoln, I don't. Lincoln was hardly a perfect man. He was no Washington. Neither was Jefferson Davis.

Am I? Cause I have readily identified several propaganda techniques commonly employed by the left (i.e. the construction of straw men) in your own attempts to discredit, or more appropriately distract from the analogy of clear Lincolnian elements in Palpatine's speech. That would seem to indicate that you, rather than myself, are currently engaged in the very techniques you speak of.

1. A straw man arguement, something you also use is a debating technique devoid of idology. The same is true for reducto ad absurdum. Deconstructionism was created by Michele Foucault.

2. Pointing out flaws is not a distraction to anyone but one who sees only his arguement.

Indeed, but that fact bears little relevance to and certainly does not exclude him from drawing upon historical motifs from elsewhere.

Lucas has never once mentioned the American Civil war. You are reading into a movie, something which is not there.

30 posted on 05/27/2002 10:22:20 PM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
I wrote:
Lincoln took many unpopular positions which cost him elections.

GOPcapitalist responded
Yet to an even greater degree, he crafted his politics to win them.
It is easy to be an idealogue. It is far harder to be elected and turn principles into law or policy.

Lincoln opposed slavery and lost his Senatorial race to Stephan Douglas.

Untrue. If you recall back in 1858, senators did not run for election. The state legislatures picked them.

That the electorate was restricted ot the State Legislature did not preclude electioneering aimed at swaying Legislatures directly or through their constituents.
Lincold and Douglas both campaigned and famously debated each other.

So where then did the debates with Stephen Douglas come from? Quite simply, they were campaign appearanced made in attempt to win seats in the legislature for each figure's respective political party. As for those debate appearances, Lincoln was by far the bigger "waffler" of the two, tuning his message carefully to his audiences. He changes positions to his audience between stops so much that Douglas openly accused him in later debates of contradicting himself between appearances.

I will not deny that Lincoln tailored his message. He lost and deserved to.

Yes, but Lincoln was securely in his second term when the time for "reconstruction" emerged. He was not up for election any more.

You have it exactly backwards.
The Radical Republicans' plan for Reconstruction were never popular with most voters. The idea of posting large number of troops in a defeated South was not popular with a war weary populace.
Lincoln's more moderate plans were more popular. This angered some Radical Republicans like Thad Stevens, who tried to dump Lincoln.

31 posted on 05/27/2002 10:31:59 PM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Twodees
[Lincoln did not create the rebellion]

Yes, he did. There was no rebellion and he couldn't stretch his constitutional powers to cover waging war over secession, so he called the secession of the states a rebellion so that he would have the pretext for waging a war. You're the vicitm of an indoctrination, rather than the recipient of an education,

The State militias which attacked federal armories to steal their contents were commiting Sedition, just as John Brown did. That a state government had illegally ordered them to do so, does not change the fact.

Lincoln took unConstitutional powers during the war. However, he was acting as Commander In Chief putting down an unConstitutional rebellion.

As for the statement "Yes he did", when did the South Carolina legislature become run by Lincoln Loyalists?

32 posted on 05/27/2002 10:36:48 PM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Secession is not rebellion, kid. Lincoln had no rebellion to deal with, so he declared the secession of the Southern states a rebellion to give himself the threadbare cover of his own twisted interpretation of the Constitution.

When a state secedes, the federal government has no property inside its boundaries any longer. Lincoln and his radicals needed for there to be a rebellion so that they could claim to be acting properly in invading the sovereign states of a newly formed nation, therefore they claimed that the seceded states were in a state of rebellion. That was hogwash then and it's hogwash now.

The way fantasy is established as historical fact will become apparent to you when your grandchildren argue with you that Clinton wasn't the corrupt rapist we all know he is, but instead, was the greatest president in our history. That will be the way Clinton is regarded after two generations have passed and it will happen in exactly the same way that Lincoln was deified. Your grandkids will stand there cloaked in a liberal socialist indoctrination, probably from your own alma mater and tell you that you're delusional because their professors gave them the facts.

I'm giving you this warning in case your lonely hearts ad in your profile bears fruit. ;-)

33 posted on 05/28/2002 5:40:00 AM PDT by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Twodees
Secession is not rebellion, kid. Lincoln had no rebellion to deal with, so he declared the secession of the Southern states a rebellion to give himself the threadbare cover of his own twisted interpretation of the Constitution.

An unConstitional attempt to secede by means of armed forces in conflict with the lawfully constituted government is both secession and sedition.
Please show me where secession is allowed under the Constiution.

When a state secedes, the federal government has no property inside its boundaries any longer. Lincoln and his radicals needed for there to be a rebellion so that they could claim to be acting properly in invading the sovereign states of a newly formed nation, therefore they claimed that the seceded states were in a state of rebellion. That was hogwash then and it's hogwash now.
You assume that secession was Constitutional. It was not. The Federal government had every right and responsibility toi put down an insurrection once it had been attacked.
I would also note that the Confederacy ceded this point when it sought to forcefully occupy and pacify West Virginia and parts of the border states.

As for fantasy, the only one I see is the idea that a State could secede from the Union. States had a right to overthrow the Federal government. They had no right to dissolve the bonds of union without said tyranny.

34 posted on 05/28/2002 10:16:55 PM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
To prove your point, you must show exactly where secession is surrendered as a state power by the states or prohibited to the states by the Constitution. That is the way the Constitution works according to the 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Secession is still a valid state power because the Constitution has not been amended to prohibit secession. It doesn't make a nickel's worth of difference whether the states disarm themselves or not when they secede, they have the power to secede without secession being sedition.

First you say that states haven't any right to bear arms against the federal government, then you say that states have a right to overthrow the federal government. That shows that you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about, because you're using the Declaration of Independence as your primary authority and absolutely ignoring the Constitution except to make an asinine claim that secession is somehow "unconstitutional".

Go to Columbia and demand your money back. They told you what to think, instead of teaching you how to think. You were robbed.

35 posted on 05/29/2002 5:26:38 AM PDT by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
It is easy to be an idealogue. It is far harder to be elected and turn principles into law or policy.

And even harder to get elected by playing personal gain politics to the extreme while simultaneously convincing a large number of people that you are not doing exactly what you are doing to win elections. And Lincoln did just that.

That the electorate was restricted ot the State Legislature did not preclude electioneering aimed at swaying Legislatures directly or through their constituents. Lincold and Douglas both campaigned and famously debated each other.

And had you read my full response before making that comment, you would know that I already acknowledged that fact.

You have it exactly backwards. The Radical Republicans' plan for Reconstruction were never popular with most voters.

Nobody ever said they were. In fact, many things Lincoln did were not popular with voters. But the political Lincoln convinced them to elect him on political sophistry.

36 posted on 06/04/2002 3:00:25 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Wonderful quote; thanks.

I have made the necessary update for 1860:

"If one of the federated states (ass achusetts) acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist." - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

37 posted on 06/05/2002 8:46:15 AM PDT by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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