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

[4Horsemen]

Go see a REAL movie....Django Unchained.

 

[thanatos144]

Go see a REAL movie....Django Unchained.

Rather not see this Tarantino movie....All it is is a excuse for him to say ****** 60 thousand times....

 

[gipper]

And the great Ron Paul agrees with me...

I stand with liberty and you guys stand with tyranny.

In 2007, Paul told “Meet The Press” said that the North should have bought the slaves living in the South and freed them, rather than pursue a war.
“Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a Civil War,” Paul told Tim Russert.
In another undated video on YouTube, Paul told an audience that slavery was an important factor in the Civil War, but not the biggest reason the conflict was fought.
“It really wasn’t the issue of why the war was fought in my estimation,” he said.
Paul said that Abraham Lincoln, like Alexander Hamilton, believed that central government should benefit the industrial base in the North, along with a central banking system.
“When they saw this opportunity, they used the issue of slavery to precipitate the war and literally cancel out the whole concept of individual choice,” he said.
“Many think the question of secession was settled by our Civil War. On the contrary; the principles of self-governance and voluntary association are at the core of our founding. Clearly Thomas Jefferson believed secession was proper, albeit as a last resort,” he added.
“Keep in mind that the first and third paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence expressly contemplate the dissolution of a political union when the underlying government becomes tyrannical. Do we have a ‘government without limitation of powers’ yet? The Federal government kept the Union together through violence and force in the Civil War, but did might really make right?” Paul added.
Ron Paul: Secession is right, Civil War maybe not - Yahoo! News

 

[thanatos144]

And the great Ron Paul agrees with me...

I stand with liberty and you guys stand with tyranny.

In 2007, Paul told “Meet The Press” said that the North should have bought the slaves living in the South and freed them, rather than pursue a war.
“Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a Civil War,” Paul told Tim Russert.
In another undated video on YouTube, Paul told an audience that slavery was an important factor in the Civil War, but not the biggest reason the conflict was fought.
“It really wasn’t the issue of why the war was fought in my estimation,” he said.
Paul said that Abraham Lincoln, like Alexander Hamilton, believed that central government should benefit the industrial base in the North, along with a central banking system.
“When they saw this opportunity, they used the issue of slavery to precipitate the war and literally cancel out the whole concept of individual choice,” he said.
“Many think the question of secession was settled by our Civil War. On the contrary; the principles of self-governance and voluntary association are at the core of our founding. Clearly Thomas Jefferson believed secession was proper, albeit as a last resort,” he added.
“Keep in mind that the first and third paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence expressly contemplate the dissolution of a political union when the underlying government becomes tyrannical. Do we have a ‘government without limitation of powers’ yet? The Federal government kept the Union together through violence and force in the Civil War, but did might really make right?” Paul added.
Ron Paul: Secession is right, Civil War maybe not - Yahoo! News

Ron Paul is a racist. Please try again.

 

[Fun]

You're right. Spielberg should have said: "We're not entirely sure that all of this happened exactly like this, so let's just not make the movie."
Haha

 

[thanatos144]

Here are the facts....Lincoln was elected President, The confederates started a war shortly after, The union won the war , Slavery was ended, the rest is filler. I know you neoconfederats will say it was a economic thing that the mean Union wouldn't trade fairly with the confederate states....Why would they want to trade with a people whose economy was made on the backs of slaves? Also why should the union have to trade with slave owning traitors to the country? You have to love that the Neo confederates like to cry about how Lincoln didnt treat the confederate states constitutionally which is funny seeing since they seceded they gave up their constitutional rights.

 

[paperview]

The movie was based on historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals.

 

[Mushroom]

And the great Ron Paul agrees with me...

Greatm yet another example of why I am glad I do not agree with you.

And sorry, already busted that statement of his days ago. If you think every other nation ended slavery without bloodshed, then obviously you know nothing of the history of France.

 

[Mushroom]

Here are the facts....Lincoln was elected President, The confederates started a war shortly after, The union won the war , Slavery was ended, the rest is filler. I know you neoconfederats will say it was a economic thing that the mean Union wouldn't trade fairly with the confederate states....Why would they want to trade with a people whose economy was made on the backs of slaves? Also why should the union have to trade with slave owning traitors to the country? You have to love that the Neo confederates like to cry about how Lincoln didnt treat the confederate states constitutionally which is funny seeing since they seceded they gave up their constitutional rights.

This is actually part of the irony of it all.

After the war was over, the South had to live with Reconstruction. Now of course a great many resented it, but also most appreciated that it was in the model that President Lincoln had set forth before he was assassinated, not the harsh retribution that most Republicans at the time wanted to see.

And once President Johnson was gone, they proceeded with the radical plan whole-heartedly. And the more moderate idea was dead for another 11 years.

 

[gipper]

Lots of historians know that Lincoln was a tyrant. Yet many Americans still cling to the silly Lincoln myth...continuing a foolish charade.

Unfortunately, say historians, its portrayal of America’s most revered president is about as accurate as the notion that an ordinary soldier could have recited the Gettysburg Address from memory when the speech only became famous in the 20th century.
Not only, they say, has Spielberg’s lengthy drama grossly exaggerated Lincoln’s role in ending slavery, but it has also glossed over the president’s rather less likeable qualities.
Both Spielberg and his screenwriter have insisted this film is the definitive account of the defeat of slavery. ‘We were enormously accurate,’ said Kushner.
‘What we’re describing absolutely happened.’
Sadly, historians have been less impressed than the critics by such assurances. One after another has risked breaking step with national sentiment by declaring that Lincoln wasn’t quite the great liberator after all.
The Emancipation Proclamation is an order issued to all segments of the Executive branch, including the Army and Navy, of the United States by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War
‘As cinema it’s very, very good. As history it leaves something to be desired,’ says Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University who won a Pulitzer Prize for his book on Lincoln and slavery.
Historian Henry Louis Gates has called him a ‘recovering racist’. Other African-American experts on the period agree.
He supported so-called ‘black colonisation’, backing unsuccessful schemes to send willing freed slaves to new lives — still toiling in the fields under blazing suns, of course — in countries such as Haiti, Panama and British Honduras.
Supporters say he only did it to persuade Congress to agree to freeing the slaves, but new evidence from, of all places, the National Archives at Kew in South-West London, suggests not.
Even after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 — which announced that all those enslaved in Confederate territories would be freed for ever — he approved plans in tandem with the British to set up freed slave settlements in what are now Belize and Guyana.
Was Lincoln racist? Spielberg film lionises him but historians are now asking a shocking question | Mail Online

 

[gipper]

Are you intelligent enough to accept the truth about Lincoln?

This article spells it out for you...

This Humean notion of Americanism that acknowledges the right of a self-governing people to secede is framed in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is primarily a document justifying secession, but it has been thoroughly corrupted by Lincoln’s reading of it and the ritualistic repetition and expansion of that reading. The Lincoln tradition reads the Declaration as affirming a metaphysical doctrine of individual rights (all men are created equal) and takes this to be the fundamental symbol of the American regime, trumping all other symbols, including the symbol of moral excellence internal to those inherited moral communities protected by the reserved powers of the states under the Tenth Amendment. Indeed, this tradition holds that the Declaration of Independence is superior to the Constitution itself, for being mere positive law, the Constitution can always be trumped by the “higher” metaphysical law of equality.

The Constitution of the United States was founded as a federative compact between the states, marking out the authority of a central government, having enumerated powers delegated to it by sovereign states which reserved for themselves the vast domain of unenumerated powers. By an act of philosophical alchemy, the Lincoln tradition has transmuted this essentially federative document into a consolidated nationalist regime having as its telos the instantiation of an abstract metaphysical proposition about equality. Such a proposition, in so far as it is taken seriously, must give rise to endless antinomic interpretations, and being metaphysical, these interpretations must stand in ultimate and implacable opposition. In this vision, the reserved powers of the states vanish, and the states themselves are transformed into resources for and administrative units of a nationalist political project “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” So well established has this inversion become that Mortimer Adler could write a book on the Constitution using for the title not the words of the Constitution, but those of the Lincolnian Declaration: “We Hold These Truths...”[4]

Lincoln’s vision of a consolidated nationalism in pursuit of an antinomic doctrine of equality had its roots in the French Revolution, which sought to unify the decentralized traditional order of France into a consolidated nationalism in pursuit of the rights of man. But Lincoln’s vision was also forward looking. By the 1830s, the forces of nationalism and industrialism were sweeping Europe, and had begun to have an impact on an industrial North all too eager to compete on the world stage with the empires of Europe. For this project, centralization and consolidation were necessary. Lincoln’s vision of consolidating the states into a nationalist regime was of a piece with that of Garibaldi in Italy, Bismarck in Germany, Lenin in Russia, and the general consolidating, industrializing, and imperializing forces on the move in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

One reason why Americans have difficulty even thinking about secession is that since 1865, they have been taught and have come to believe the triumphant Unionist theory of their own constitutional order. According to that theory, the break with England threw the colonists into a state of nature from which they spontaneously formed the political society of the American people in the aggregate. This body was sovereign and created a central government. This government, in turn, authorized the formation of thirteen state governments as administrative units through which the sovereign will could be best expressed. In this view, an American state never possessed the attributes of sovereignty and so could not legally secede from the Union any more than a county could legally secede from a state. The classic formulation of the nationalist theory was given by Justice Story in the 1830s; it was eloquently defended by Webster and was established in the world with a writ of fire and sword by Lincoln. [6] Despite this distinguished pedigree, however, the theory is not only false, but spectacularly so.

The main error of the Unionist theory is the claim that the states were never sovereign. Each state, however, declared its sovereignty and independence from Britain on its own, and during the war each engaged in acts of sovereignty. After the war, each state was recognized by name as sovereign by the British government.

This did not have to be asserted, since everyone knew that secession was an action available to an American state.[7] If, at the time of ratification, Lincoln’s theory had been stated that the states were not and had never been sovereign, and that once in the Union a state could not leave, there would have been no Union.

...but it was no more hypocritical than Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address that presents the conflict of 1861–65 as an earth-shaking war to make the world safe for self-government, when he was engaged in a total war aimed at the civilian population of the South, and designed to suppress their efforts at self-government. The irony is complete when we consider that the Soviets eventually did allow the secession of states (something that caused nervous tremors in the Bush administration). Perhaps over time, as sometimes happens, the Soviets were partially converted by their own hypocrisy.

http://mises.org/daily/6345/A-Voluntary-Federation

 

[gipper]

And now the great Walter Williams chimes in....and of course he and I are in complete agreement and those who posted in this thread, who disagreed, are proven to be uninformed.

Lincoln committed treason by warring on fellow Americans causing terrible death and destruction, primarily to keep revenue flowing to the federal government, as I stated long ago in this thread.

You say, "His Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves! That proves he was against slavery." Lincoln's words: "I view the matter (Emancipation Proclamation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." At the time Lincoln wrote the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union. London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and considering assisting it in its war effort.
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." But that was Lincoln's 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn't Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
Abraham Lincoln - Walter E. Williams - Page 1

 

[gipper]

Further proof from the great Mises website that I am right and those of you who admire Lincoln are WRONG.

Lincoln was a tyrant. He preferred war against follow Americans solely to keep southern tariffs in force. All Americans should condemn him for his actions.

Please read and comprehend...

The moral grandeur of Lincoln is rooted in the myth that he made a war on the South to abolish slavery. This is, at most, a Platonic noble lie designed to legitimate the Unionist regime. Lincoln thought that slavery was immoral, but so did Robert E. Lee. And Lee, at his own expense, freed the slaves he had inherited, through marriage, from the family of George Washington. Only around fifteen percent of southerners even owned slaves, and the great majority of these had holdings of one to six. Jefferson Davis was an enlightened slave holder who said that once the Confederacy gained its independence, it would mean the end of slavery. The Confederate Cabinet agreed to abolish slavery within five years after the cessation of hostilities in exchange for recognition by Britain and France. Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery, but simply and solely because they were being invaded. And the North certainly did not invade to abolish slavery.
Slavery was more secure in 1860 than it had ever been. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, had declared that Africans were not citizens; and Congress approved a constitutional amendment that would take the regulation of slavery forever out of the hands of the central government. Lincoln said that he had no authority and no inclination to interfere with slavery in the states where it was legal. He could tolerate slavery as a means of controlling what nearly everyone saw to be an exotic and alien population. What he could not tolerate was a dissolution of the Union, loss of revenue from the South, and a low-tariff zone on his southern border. This was the consistent thread running through Lincoln’s policy from 1860–1865. He would not recognize the conventions of the people of the southern states, and he would not negotiate with their commissioners. He would go to war immediately to coerce the states of the deep South back into the Union. And it was this act that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas could not tolerate. They had been opposed to the radicalism of the deep South, and their legislatures had voted firmly to stay within the Union. But they would not answer Lincoln’s call for troops to coerce a state into the Union; this they considered not only unconstitutional, but immoral.

This broader experience enables us to take a fresh look at the morality of Lincoln’s decision. It has been said that, although the Union was originally conceived as a compact between sovereign states entailing a right to secession, it evolved into the notion of an indivisible, organic Union from which secession was impossible. This notion, however, was late in arriving, and was not universally received by 1860. Southerners obviously did not believe it, nor did many northerners. There was tremendous opposition to Lincoln’s invasion of the South. To maintain power, he was forced to suspend the writ of habeas corpus throughout the North for the duration of the war, netting tens of thousands of political prisoners. Some 300 opposition newspapers were closed down. Democratic candidates, critical of the war, were arrested by the military, and the military was used to secure Republican victories at the polls, including Lincoln’s election in 1864
Charles Adams has shown that the Republican agenda could not tolerate a low-tariff zone to the south, and that the North had become accustomed to the South’s funding the bulk of the federal revenue through its export trade.[5] And it was just this horror of what an economically independent South would mean to northern industrial interests that Charles Bancroft, writing in 1874, presented as the justification for invading the South:

While so gigantic a war was an immense evil; to allow the right of peaceable secession would have been ruin to the enterprise and thrift of the industrious laborer, and keen eyed business man of the North. It would have been the greatest calamity of the age. War was less to be feared. [6]

A million-and-a-half people were killed, wounded, or missing in the war. The defense of protective tariffs has seldom been so ferocious, or so crude.

Lincoln’s conservative statesmanlike posture about preserving an indivisible union cannot be taken seriously. Not only did he not inherit such a union, the only union he was interested in preserving was a union which was dominated by northern industrial ambition. And it was exactly this that Lincoln, and the Republican party, after his death, accomplished.

Lincoln's Inversion of the American Union - Donald W. Livingston - Mises Daily

 

[gipper]

You must let go of your brainwashed thinking, instilled in you by the State, in their indoctrination centers. Lincoln was a fucking TYRANT! He has much in common with the many murderous tyrants of history, which all of us can agree upon. Why can't we agree on Lincoln?

The Mises column gets better with this...

What would the great Virginians, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Randolph, John Taylor, and “Lighthorse” Harry Lee have done? They all supported the Union, believed the Constitution was a compact between the states, and were Virginians first. So when the states of the deep South discussed secession, Virginia called a convention of the people to decide the question, and the convention voted firmly to stay in the Union. It was only after Lincoln had decided on war and called for troops that the convention reconvened and voted to secede. Madison had said in the Federalist that the central government could not coerce a state. To be sure that the will of the people was expressed, the judgment of the convention was put to the people of Virginia, who supported secession by a margin of five to one. Tennessee was also pro-Union, but, in a referendum of the voters, decided to secede by a margin of two to one after Lincoln’s decision to wage war. The pro-Union states of North Carolina and Arkansas seceded for the same reason.

To treat, as Lincoln did, the peoples of entire states who had engaged in deliberate and legal acts of self-government as common criminals and as “domestic foes” aroused deep emotions of resentment and injustice that could be felt only by an American who had received with his mother’s milk the principle, framed in the Declaration of Independence, of the self-government of independent moral and political societies. As the case of Robert E. Lee makes clear, this feeling of resentment had nothing to do with slavery, an institution he thought was on its way to oblivion. It was this deeply felt American resentment that enabled the entire South, 85 percent of whom did not own slaves, to mobilize and to make spectacular sacrifices to keep out an invading army, the government of which was intent on destroying, and did destroy, the corporate liberty of their political societies. It was this sense of state honor that Hamilton had in mind when he said in the Federalist that the central government could never make war against an American state, and which he again asserted again before the New York State convention: “To coerce a state would be one of the maddest projects ever devised. No state would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another.” One cannot imagine the great Virginians of his time disagreeing.

Herman Melville, who had a good eye for the hypocrisy of northern industrial unionism, wrote:

Who looks at Lee must think of Washington
In pain must think and hide the thought
So deep with grievous meaning is it fraught.[8]

To this conservative and backward-looking image, we should add the forward-looking and “progressive” image: he who looks at Lincoln has seen the consolidationists Bismarck and Lenin.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The unwashed, unintelligent gipper keeps on nattering.

 

[gipper]

The unwashed, unintelligent gipper keeps on nattering.

You are like many Americans...terribly confused....but don't feel bad. There are many of you brainwashed drones out there.

You can readily comprehend government tyranny at Waco and Ruby Ridge, but not in Old Dishonest Abe. So, you are getting close to reaching a basic level of understanding, but you are still terribly confused and conflicted.

When an American comes to recognize and accept the Lincoln Myth, one becomes a REAL American.

 

[editec]

Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents. Dude was a tyrant.

Yes, he was. Tyrant is exactly the right word, too.

A tyrant is a ruler given extrordinary powers granted in times of extreme threat to the state. It's a Greek word, incidently, and it meant the same thing then it means now.

A tyrant is granted tyranical powers (like martial law) during a time of civil revolt or in times of war.

Of course, he started acting like a tyrant a few months before he was granted those unusual powers by Congress, too, so I can sort of understand when some people bitch about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, brainwashed drones such a gipper do not have a basic level of understanding about such basic matters as the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, and the role of race in America.

As such as gipper learn, they will become better Americasn and more positively involved in our country's narrative.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents. Dude was a tyrant.

Yes, he was. Tyrant is exactly the right word, too.

A tyrant is a ruler given extrordinary powers granted in times of extreme threat to the state. It's a Greek word, incidently, and it meant the same thing then it means now.

A tyrant is granted tyranical powers (like martial law) during a time of civil revolt or in times of war.

Of course, he started acting like a tyrant a few months before he was granted those unusual powers by Congress, too, so I can sort of understand when some people bitch about it.

Thanks for the insight. Only those who wished for a CSA success bitch about the outcome.

 

[gipper]

Yes, brainwashed drones such a gipper do not have a basic level of understanding about such basic matters as the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, and the role of race in America.

As such as gipper learn, they will become better Americasn and more positively involved in our country's narrative.

Lets see...I have posted the views of EXPERTS, who agree with me about the tyrant Dishonest Abe, while you have posted nothing backing your belief in the Lincoln Myth.

Believing Lincoln right in murdering 800k Americans is fundamentally the belief in the unlimited power of the Central State. It is frightening that so many Americans continue to believe the big lie.

Is it any wonder we now have an out of control central government?