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

[JakeStarkey]

Everyone knew that Lincoln was always ready to protect slavery in the South.

Interesting that enforcing constitutional, electoral process as well as ending slavery are marks of "progressive tyranny.

 

[paperview]

Some might find this of interest.

What was the reaction of Jefferson Davis to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation?

In a broadside dated January 5, 1863, and published at Richmond ::

Original here: http://international.loc.gov/rbc/rbpe/rbpe18/rbpe187/18702100/001dr.jpg

"An Address To the People of the Free States by the President of the Southern Confederacy..."

"...all free Negroes in the Southern Confederacy shall be placed on the slave status, and deemed to be chattels, they and their issue forever."

So EVEN THE FREE BLACKS AFTER 1863 WERE NO LONGER FREE!
Even their children and children's children were bonded into slavery FOREVER!

These were, prior to 1863, FREE BLACKS in the South.

To those who deny the cause of the war --

Wanna tell me again how this wasn't about slavery -- and that, as some like pretend, the Institution itself was "on its way out???"

Go head. Try if you can.

 

[paperview]

Moreover, in that broadside, Davis proclaimed that all Negroes who were captured in states where slavery did not exist were to be adjudged to occupy the status of slaves,

"...so that the respective normal condition of the white and black races may be ultimately placed on a permanent basis."

Any of these neo-confederates starts to tell you the South did not fight primarily to defend slavery, or had any intention of before, during the war, or long after - of getting rid of slavery - or allowing it to "die out" -- Remind them of this declaration by the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis.

 

[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.

Which reminds me. Haven't we been through this before?

Oh yes, we have.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6392610-post287.html

It appears since then, you've not bothered to educate yourself on the subject.

(I'm still laughing you think in 1860, the Industrial Revolution had not yet even occurred. (!) Hilarious. Were you home schooled?)

 

[dominico]

it was a bit more accurate than the vampire hunter one.

 

[paperview]

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
November 1863

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

[paperview]

Here's a fun one for those who hold up the Southern rebels as some brave Constitutionalists, interested in the ideals of that document:

South Carolina Asks That Non-Slaveholding States Make Abolitionist Societies Illegal, Dec. 16, 1835

The Gathering Storm

South Carolina Asks That Non-Slaveholding States Make Abolitionist Societies Illegal, Dec. 16, 1835 South Carolina Asks Non-Slaveholding States to Make Abolitionist Societies Illegal, Dec. 16, 1835

From Acts and Resolutions of South Carolina, Dec. 1835, 26-28, from “State Documents on Federal Relations: The States and the United States, No. V. Slavery and the Constitution, 1789-1845,” edited by Herman V. Ames, published by The Department of History of the University of Pennsylvania, 1906.

From this resolution you can see that South Carolina has little interest in the states' rights of non-slaveholding states.

<Snip>

3. Resolved, That the Legislature of South Carolina, having every confidence in the justice and friendship of the non-slave*holding states, announces to her co-states her confident expecta*tion, and she earnestly requests that the governments of these states will promptly and effectually suppress all those associations within their respective limits, purporting to be abolition societies, and that they will make it highly penal to print, publish and dis*tribute newspapers, pamphlets, tracts and pictorial representations calculated and having an obvious tendency to excite the slaves of the southern states to insurrection and revolt.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[JakeStarkey]

paperview body slams the dummies to the mat, stomps their faces in, and slaps the chains of history and logic and truth on the naysayers, shackling them to Derision and Flatulence.

 

[Mushroom]

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.

All I can say is "wow".

OK, now for a little history lesson. You did not say which Civil Rights Act, so lets go through them, starting in 1968 and going backwards, shall we?

Civil Rights Act of 1968, 71.2% of Senate Democrats voted for this legislation, 90.6% of Republicans voted for it.

Voting Rights Act of 1965, 73% of Senate Democrats favored this legislation, and 78% of House Democrats. Of the Republicans, 94% of Republican Senators and 82% of House Republicans approved this one.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 69% of Senate Democrats and 61% of House Democrats approved this legislation. Meanwhile, 82% of Republican Senators and 80% of House Republicans approved this law.

Shall we continue playing? The votes are a matter of public record, and easy to look up. Funny how you are making claims that are the exact opposite of history.

Feel free to look it up, see for yourself which party had a higher percentage of approving votes. This is why I tell people over and over to not just parrot things they hear from others, but to do real research themselves and find out what happened.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

All I can say is "wow".

OK, now for a little history lesson. You did not say which Civil Rights Act, so lets go through them, starting in 1968 and going backwards, shall we?

Civil Rights Act of 1968, 71.2% of Senate Democrats voted for this legislation, 90.6% of Republicans voted for it.

Voting Rights Act of 1965, 73% of Senate Democrats favored this legislation, and 78% of House Democrats. Of the Republicans, 94% of Republican Senators and 82% of House Republicans approved this one.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 69% of Senate Democrats and 61% of House Democrats approved this legislation. Meanwhile, 82% of Republican Senators and 80% of House Republicans approved this law.

Shall we continue playing? The votes are a matter of public record, and easy to look up. Funny how you are making claims that are the exact opposite of history.

Feel free to look it up, see for yourself which party had a higher percentage of approving votes. This is why I tell people over and over to not just parrot things they hear from others, but to do real research themselves and find out what happened.

Blah....blah....blah

You guys have been selling that lie for years. Break out the numbers by North and South and then tell us how they look

Trying to convert a North/South issue into a Republican/Democrat issue is not convincing anyone

 

[paperview]

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.

All I can say is "wow".

OK, now for a little history lesson. You did not say which Civil Rights Act, so lets go through them, starting in 1968 and going backwards, shall we?

Civil Rights Act of 1968, 71.2% of Senate Democrats voted for this legislation, 90.6% of Republicans voted for it.

Voting Rights Act of 1965, 73% of Senate Democrats favored this legislation, and 78% of House Democrats. Of the Republicans, 94% of Republican Senators and 82% of House Republicans approved this one.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 69% of Senate Democrats and 61% of House Democrats approved this legislation. Meanwhile, 82% of Republican Senators and 80% of House Republicans approved this law.

Shall we continue playing? The votes are a matter of public record, and easy to look up. Funny how you are making claims that are the exact opposite of history.

Feel free to look it up, see for yourself which party had a higher percentage of approving votes. This is why I tell people over and over to not just parrot things they hear from others, but to do real research themselves and find out what happened.

1964 called. They wanted to let you know 50 years ago

is not today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are an ass, Mush, and you know it.

The majority of the Pubs were in the North and West, and voted lock step with the Dems of the North and West.

The Southern Pubs voted AGAINST the bills in HIGHER %s than the Southern Dems on this bills? Are you aware of that fact?

Don't you know a fucking thing about this? Are you listening to Rush or some other lame brain fucking idiot? Fools like you fuck up the process.

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.

All I can say is "wow".

OK, now for a little history lesson. You did not say which Civil Rights Act, so lets go through them, starting in 1968 and going backwards, shall we?

Civil Rights Act of 1968, 71.2% of Senate Democrats voted for this legislation, 90.6% of Republicans voted for it.

Voting Rights Act of 1965, 73% of Senate Democrats favored this legislation, and 78% of House Democrats. Of the Republicans, 94% of Republican Senators and 82% of House Republicans approved this one.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 69% of Senate Democrats and 61% of House Democrats approved this legislation. Meanwhile, 82% of Republican Senators and 80% of House Republicans approved this law.

Shall we continue playing? The votes are a matter of public record, and easy to look up. Funny how you are making claims that are the exact opposite of history.

Feel free to look it up, see for yourself which party had a higher percentage of approving votes. This is why I tell people over and over to not just parrot things they hear from others, but to do real research themselves and find out what happened.

 

[paperview]

Here's a simple test, ye who trot out 50 year old voting records and have some absurd notion George Wallace and Bull Conner were liberals:

Which party trumpeted "States Rights" before the 1960's?

Which party trumpets it now?

Once you get that, you're halfway there.

 

[Toro]

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.

All I can say is "wow".

OK, now for a little history lesson. You did not say which Civil Rights Act, so lets go through them, starting in 1968 and going backwards, shall we?

Civil Rights Act of 1968, 71.2% of Senate Democrats voted for this legislation, 90.6% of Republicans voted for it.

Voting Rights Act of 1965, 73% of Senate Democrats favored this legislation, and 78% of House Democrats. Of the Republicans, 94% of Republican Senators and 82% of House Republicans approved this one.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 69% of Senate Democrats and 61% of House Democrats approved this legislation. Meanwhile, 82% of Republican Senators and 80% of House Republicans approved this law.

Shall we continue playing? The votes are a matter of public record, and easy to look up. Funny how you are making claims that are the exact opposite of history.

Feel free to look it up, see for yourself which party had a higher percentage of approving votes. This is why I tell people over and over to not just parrot things they hear from others, but to do real research themselves and find out what happened.

lol



Outstanding.

 

[Votto]

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.

So you still think slaves would be picking cotton till this day? Whatever.

 

[Votto]

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.

Which reminds me. Haven't we been through this before?

Oh yes, we have.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6392610-post287.html

It appears since then, you've not bothered to educate yourself on the subject.

(I'm still laughing you think in 1860, the Industrial Revolution had not yet even occurred. (!) Hilarious. Were you home schooled?)

My point here was that machines would have eventually replaced slave labor.

I realize you discount me having an education from public schools because I am able to read and write and actually question the progressive stooges.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Votto, the machines that came to timber, agriculture, and oil in the 1880s and after in the South did not end social and economic slavery under Jim Crow. Slavery would have ended very slowly, and the minority population would have suffered just as much or more than they did after 1877.

 

[bripat9643]

...

Lincoln started the war to force the Southern States to collect the Morrill tariff.

Pile 'O bull crap. The first shots were fired before Lincoln even stepped into the office.

That's wrong. Fort Sumter occurred after Lincoln was inaugurated. Furthermore, Lincoln committed the first act of war by trying to resupply Fort Sumter. Who fired the first shots is irrelevant.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes. That is exactly what people who got their history credentials from a university rather than a crackerjack box say.

Actually, not. Historians all admit that Lincoln wiped his ass on the Constitution. They just make excuses for it and canonize him as some kind of saint.

I've never seen a reputable historian make that argument. Who have you been reading?

The Lincoln cult historians are not "reputable." They are propagandists who lie about Everything Lincoln did.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat has far more in common with Htiler and this thugs than he does with American and its values.

What do I have in common with Hitler?