Steven Spielberg's movie about Lincoln is pure bullshit !!!!!!!

[paperview]

Abe looked into it and quickly found it unworkable

Lincoln for the most part abandoned the idea after 1863.

You are both wrong. Lincoln was long devoted to colonization schemes.

Check this out: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Colonization-After-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098"]Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement [/ame]

Here's a quote about Lincoln and colonization: Using long-forgotten records scattered across three continents—many of them untouched since the Civil War—the authors show that Lincoln continued his search for a freedmen’s colony much longer than previously thought.

Thank you. This is based on new documents, and I may consider purchasing the book. The reviews make it worthy.

That said, Lincoln all along had not been in favor of involuntary colonization. Always the pragmatic, he did know the freeing of some 4 million bondsmen would create bitter and terrifying new worlds for both blacks and whites. What of states like Mississippi, where there were more slaves than free men, now suddenly free?

Angry slaveholders, deprived of their property, scared penniless blacks with broken families and dim prospects (and we saw after they had been freed, attempts and actual measures which effectively re-enslaved them were employed by some of the Southern states) was of major concern in maintaining the peace. The option to live in the West Indies might have sounded a great deal better than what else they may have faced (and indeed, what they in fact did come to face...)

So I don't see it as a slight on Lincoln as his detractors do, or that it was conceived with malicious intent, nor is it inconsistent with his beliefs that slavery was morally wrong.

I look forward to learning more about these newly discovered documents.

 

[JakeStarkey]

By 1860, almost every slave had born in America. They had not been stolen from anywhere. Your statement is not realistic.

Abe wanted to send all blacks back to Africa...that would have devastated the NBA, but possibly kept Obabble where he belonged. On the other hand had we waited for Whitney's cotton gin, technology could have obviated the necessity for war.

Tell me why is it considered wrong to wish to send people back to the country from which they were stolen from???????? I think it was too expensive and so did they in the end.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The GOP was founded on white economic opportunity first, last, always.

It was anti-slavery, not abolitionist, because the slave power threatened white civil rights and white economic opportunity.

[/LIST]

Right wingers, when you think of slavery, do you say, ah, the good ol days? You know, capitalism at its finest?

I always laugh when people make that statement.

Democrats were the party that split over slavery, with the majority of them supporting it and the Civil War.

Republicans were the party that was primarily founded on the principal of Emancipation.

Personally, slavery was a dying institution, that only had a decade or more to go at best I believe. The Industrial Revolution was just swinging into high gear at the time of the Civil War, and would have shortly rendered slavery obsolete.

That is why the only places it really still survives is in those regions that have little industrialization, and everything is still largely done by hand. In industrialized nations, it is cheaper and easier to build a machine to do it then it is to buy and take care of a human being.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Answered above in #249.

Abe looked into it and quickly found it unworkable

Lincoln for the most part abandoned the idea after 1863.

You are both wrong. Lincoln was long devoted to colonization schemes.

Check this out: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Colonization-After-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098"]Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement [/ame]

Here's a quote about Lincoln and colonization: Using long-forgotten records scattered across three continents—many of them untouched since the Civil War—the authors show that Lincoln continued his search for a freedmen’s colony much longer than previously thought.

No doubt Lincoln was a white supremacist. Here's a quote from Lincoln: "I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."

LINK

 

[jillian]

The GOP was founded on white economic opportunity first, last, always.

It was anti-slavery, not abolitionist, because the slave power threatened white civil rights and white economic opportunity.

[/LIST]

Right wingers, when you think of slavery, do you say, ah, the good ol days? You know, capitalism at its finest?

I always laugh when people make that statement.

Democrats were the party that split over slavery, with the majority of them supporting it and the Civil War.

Republicans were the party that was primarily founded on the principal of Emancipation.

Personally, slavery was a dying institution, that only had a decade or more to go at best I believe. The Industrial Revolution was just swinging into high gear at the time of the Civil War, and would have shortly rendered slavery obsolete.

That is why the only places it really still survives is in those regions that have little industrialization, and everything is still largely done by hand. In industrialized nations, it is cheaper and easier to build a machine to do it then it is to buy and take care of a human being.

the republican party of the 1800's is not the republican party of today. the democrats of that time, the slavers, the states' rights extremists... the people who fought to keep slavery are all incorporated into today's GOP... they ran to the GOP after the civil rights' act.

as for the GOP being founded on white economic opportunity, jake, i don't think that's correct either. i think there were different people who wanted similar things for different reasons.

but it was fun to watch congress being the same unruly idiots they are today.

it's also fun to see the cons try to revise history in regards to lincoln. they can't stand that he's universally looked at as one of our greatest presidents.... well, except for people who still think there should be slavery and that the states should be able to tell the federal government what to do.

 

[rightwinger]

Abe looked into it and quickly found it unworkable

Lincoln for the most part abandoned the idea after 1863.

You are both wrong. Lincoln was long devoted to colonization schemes.

Check this out: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Colonization-After-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098"]Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement [/ame]

Here's a quote about Lincoln and colonization: Using long-forgotten records scattered across three continents—many of them untouched since the Civil War—the authors show that Lincoln continued his search for a freedmen’s colony much longer than previously thought.

No doubt Lincoln was a white supremacist. Here's a quote from Lincoln: "I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."

LINK

Looking at 19th century morals through a 21st century set of eyes is always easy

Did many Americans in 1860 believe negros were their social and intellectual equals? Very few did.
Did that mean they deserved to be slaves? That was the big question

Hell, it was the 1960s until we believed blacks and whites should be allowed to marry

Lincoln put it best in that his core belief was that a man toiling in a field all day deserved the fruit of his labor

 

[Thunderbird]

the republican party of the 1800's is not the republican party of today. the democrats of that time, the slavers, the states' rights extremists...

Don't be a partisan stooge. The Democratic elite eagerly embraces corporate tyranny.

And anyone involved in the global economy - Republican or Democrat - benefits from slavery. We shouldn't feel at all superior.

Modern Slavery

Christians Fight Modern Slavery in Pakistan

Slavery Footprint

it's also fun to see the cons try to revise history in regards to lincoln. they can't stand that he's universally looked at as one of our greatest presidents....

The Civil War, which killed 100s of thousands, could have been avoided. Does killing helpless civilians and tossing out freedom of the press and habeas corpus make someone a great president?

 

[Thunderbird]

Why do some people praise a racist like Lincoln?

Lincoln the Racist

 

[paperview]

...
The Civil War, which killed 100s of thousands, could have been avoided.

Yes, the southerners shouldn't have started the war. They had been itching for a fight well over a decade. SC drew up secession papers in their convention in 1852. They were ready to almost go at it in 1856.

Lincoln getting elected was what it took. They never even waited for him to take office to officially secede and commence hostilities.

Does killing helpless civilians and tossing out freedom of the press and habeas corpus make someone a great president?

Yea. Jefferson Davis was pretty sucky in that regard.

 

[Votto]

GOP, time to rebrand in the image of the 'Great Emancipator' - CNN.com

Steven Spielberg's historical drama, as well as the biography upon which it is based, Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," both remind today's Americans that Lincoln was not only a moral leader but also a practical politician. The political identity that Lincoln forged for the fledgling Republican Party -- uniting the nation while defending individual rights -- was a winning formula for half a century, with the GOP winning 11 of 13 presidential elections from 1860 through 1908.

Moreover, support for civil rights persisted in the party throughout the last century. Among the Republican presidents of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt famously hosted Booker T. Washington at the White House. Dwight Eisenhower ordered federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce school desegregation. Richard Nixon expanded affirmative action. And George H. W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law.

So Obama "united" the country by force and secured power for the GOP for years to come. Was it worth over half a million dead?

The country is as divided now as it has ever been since the Civil War. The only problem for progressives today is that they don't have the cloak of slavery to hide behind to enforce their fascist tendencies.

You obviously missed out on the 60s

Read up on it sometime

You misread the populace.

Left wingers sit in protests and burn down buildings

Right wingers stock up on arms and prepare to live on their own and seek change through the political process via legal means.

It could all fall apart much faster than in the 1960's.

 

[Votto]

For all of you progressive Abe Lincoln idol worshippers, was it worth over half a million dead to keep the South?

And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue? Would it have still been worth the cost?

 

[rightwinger]

For all of you progressive Abe Lincoln idol worshippers, was it worth over half a million dead to keep the South?

And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue? Would it have still been worth the cost?

Slavery WAS the issue

Was allowing "the peculiar institution" of the South a workable alternative? Just allowing the South to walk away and maintain their slave status would have destroyed us.
The South engaged in treason and paid a price for it

 

[paperview]

And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue? ...

You can't "what if" the slavery part off.

Slavery was part and parcel and the literal blood that ran the engine of the south,

It was their cornerstone.

 

[tjvh]

I wonder how many people actually know that slavery wasn't an issue until Lincoln made it an issue to get more support for a war that was at the time not going so well for the North.

 

[Votto]

For all of you progressive Abe Lincoln idol worshippers, was it worth over half a million dead to keep the South?

And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue? Would it have still been worth the cost?

Slavery WAS the issue

Was allowing "the peculiar institution" of the South a workable alternative? Just allowing the South to walk away and maintain their slave status would have destroyed us.
The South engaged in treason and paid a price for it

It would have "destroyed us"? How so? Would over half a million have perished?

Slavery would have eventually been erradicated, just like with apartide in South Africa. No shots needed to be fired. In fact, with the coming industrial revolution, slavery would have assuradly gone away on its own.

 

[paperview]

I wonder how many people actually know that slavery wasn't an issue until Lincoln made it an issue to get more support for a war that was at the time not going so well for the North.

Well, it certainly was an issue in the campaign, and the Republican party was founded on limiting slavery's expansion, but when the rebels rebelled, the primary objective of the Commander in Chief was to keep the Union together.

As for the South, it was THE issue.

 

[Votto]

I wonder how many people actually know that slavery wasn't an issue until Lincoln made it an issue to get more support for a war that was at the time not going so well for the North.

Most probably don't know that Licoln offerred the states that had seceded the oppurtuinty to make slavery a Constitutional right in the South if only they would stay apart of the Union. After all, keeping us all under one progressive tyranny is the first order of business. Of course, the movie conveniently left this bit out. I'm sure Speilburg is not ignorant enough to have not known this, which means he is trying to rewrite history as all progressives do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jillian, I agree the party was not monolithic, but on white economic opportunity and anti-slavery, one probably had a near 99% agreement. Read the party documents and those of-Lincoln to Seward to Stevens and the other leaders. White economic opportunity was the main reason, abolition a minor position in the overwhelming fear of the slave power.

The GOP was founded on white economic opportunity first, last, always.

It was anti-slavery, not abolitionist, because the slave power threatened white civil rights and white economic opportunity.

[/LIST]

I always laugh when people make that statement.

Democrats were the party that split over slavery, with the majority of them supporting it and the Civil War.

Republicans were the party that was primarily founded on the principal of Emancipation.

Personally, slavery was a dying institution, that only had a decade or more to go at best I believe. The Industrial Revolution was just swinging into high gear at the time of the Civil War, and would have shortly rendered slavery obsolete.

That is why the only places it really still survives is in those regions that have little industrialization, and everything is still largely done by hand. In industrialized nations, it is cheaper and easier to build a machine to do it then it is to buy and take care of a human being.

the republican party of the 1800's is not the republican party of today. the democrats of that time, the slavers, the states' rights extremists... the people who fought to keep slavery are all incorporated into today's GOP... they ran to the GOP after the civil rights' act.

as for the GOP being founded on white economic opportunity, jake, i don't think that's correct either. i think there were different people who wanted similar things for different reasons.

but it was fun to watch congress being the same unruly idiots they are today.

it's also fun to see the cons try to revise history in regards to lincoln. they can't stand that he's universally looked at as one of our greatest presidents.... well, except for people who still think there should be slavery and that the states should be able to tell the federal government what to do.

 

[paperview]

For all of you progressive Abe Lincoln idol worshippers, was it worth over half a million dead to keep the South?

And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue? Would it have still been worth the cost?

Slavery WAS the issue

Was allowing "the peculiar institution" of the South a workable alternative? Just allowing the South to walk away and maintain their slave status would have destroyed us.
The South engaged in treason and paid a price for it

It would have "destroyed us"? How so? Would over half a million have perished?

Slavery would have eventually been erradicated, just like with apartide in South Africa. No shots needed to be fired. In fact, with the coming industrial revolution, slavery would have assuradly gone away on its own.

What the hell are you talking about?? With the "coming" industrial revolution??

The revolution was in full swing, and the South wanted little part of it. Their whole aristocracy plantation was based on the agrarian slave labor force.

And no, it would not have ended on it's own. People who say stupid shit like that have no idea what they are talking about.

The South had wanted to expand slavery into the territories and into Mexico and beyond. They had NO intention of giving up their billions of dollars in human capital.

 

[paperview]

I wonder how many people actually know that slavery wasn't an issue until Lincoln made it an issue to get more support for a war that was at the time not going so well for the North.

Most probably don't know that Licoln offerred the states that had seceded the oppurtuinty to make slavery a Constitutional right in the South if only they would stay apart of the Union. After all, keeping us all under one progressive tyranny is the first order of business. Of course, the movie conveniently left this bit out. I'm sure Speilburg is not ignorant enough to have not known this, which means he is trying to rewrite history as all progressives do.

Because the Corwin Amendment was little more than a footnote. It was a last ditch effort in Congress to appease the Southerners. A meaningless toss.

Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage. By the time he addressed it, most states had already seceded.