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

[gipper]

Neocon foolishness gets lots of people killed...and they think that is just fine.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t9_xURaJEqw#t=283s]Bolton Clashes With Stossel Over Obama's Drones, - YouTube[/ame]

 

[oldfart]

Had the Union been more successful in countering the rebellion of the South in the early years of the Civil War, Lincoln would never had brought out a desire to free the slaves, it was only when he was losing support for his cause did he decide to make things about freeing slaves. History has proven that fact time and time again.

I assume you are making reference to the Horace Greeley letter. As of March 4, 1861, I believe Lincoln thought he had a reasonable chance of a political solution. That had evaporated by May 20 when North Carolina had passed an ordinance of succession. Prior to First Bull Run, both sides anticipated a short war. They were wrong. By August, after the Battle of Wilson's Creek, Lincoln settled into a strategy for a long war, calling for three-year enlistments. His efforts to retain especially Kentucky during this period included plans for compensated emancipation, so I think it's wrong to take the Greeley reply at face value.

The effort to promote compensated emancipation in the border states continued well into 1862. Lincoln only abandoned it when he wrote and shared with his cabinet the first draft of the Emancipation Proclamation. At numerous points Lincoln claimed that he had no authority under the Constitution to free slaves, EXCEPT AS A WAR MEASURE. After Sharpsburg he released the Proclamation to become effective January 1, 1863.

How far Lincoln would have gone toward Emancipation had the war gone better for the Union in 1862 is a good question for counter-factual history.

 

[oldfart]

I have cited the works of several experts including the PhD Walter Williams, PhD David Livingston, PhD Thomas DiLorenzo, and the Great PhD Ludwig Von Mises. All men devoted to individual liberty and the rule of law. Of course, these great man know Lincoln was a tyrant, as do I. You have cited no one but your ignorant opinion and fall for the Lincoln Myth.

Once an American comes to realize the truth about Dishonest Abe, that American recognizes tyranny when they see it. Those incapable of comprehending the truth, will never understand tyranny in America.

I don't care how many crackpots you quote. You are willfully ignorant and obviously know nothing of history or historiography. Von Mises? Give me a break! The guy was a worse historian than he was an economist.

 

[gipper]

I have cited the works of several experts including the PhD Walter Williams, PhD David Livingston, PhD Thomas DiLorenzo, and the Great PhD Ludwig Von Mises. All men devoted to individual liberty and the rule of law. Of course, these great man know Lincoln was a tyrant, as do I. You have cited no one but your ignorant opinion and fall for the Lincoln Myth.

Once an American comes to realize the truth about Dishonest Abe, that American recognizes tyranny when they see it. Those incapable of comprehending the truth, will never understand tyranny in America.

I don't care how many crackpots you quote. You are willfully ignorant and obviously know nothing of history or historiography. Von Mises? Give me a break! The guy was a worse historian than he was an economist.

Yeah...Dr. Williams, Livingston, DiLorenzo, and Von Mises are a bunch of dummies...but you are the smart one.

Too funny!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Had the Union been more successful in countering the rebellion of the South in the early years of the Civil War, Lincoln would never had brought out a desire to free the slaves, it was only when he was losing support for his cause did he decide to make things about freeing slaves. History has proven that fact time and time again.

I think you're largely right and that makes the recent movie much less than accurate. I mean come on, the guy wanted to ship blacks off to Africa or Central America.

Maybe Spielberg saw it as his duty to make a feel good movie that would restore our faith in our history or in our leaders, or maybe he figured it was just the best way to sell a movie. I doubt a balanced critical look at Lincoln and his insane wife would have inspired so much interest.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Lincoln’s Greatest Failure​

(Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo


"Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."

~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007

The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).

In fact, as Bennett shows, it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years. The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielberg’s Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").

.

I like the way we ended slavery better. Bloodshed should have happened in the other countries too. Slave holders deserved it. The other countries that ended slavery "peacefully" were sell-outs, and they are the ones who ended slavery incorrectly.

 

[Rogue 9]

$10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution

Nah, the worst President bar none was James Buchanan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you don't know that secession was ALWAYS a right of the states, you don't know much. Up and until they murderous tyrant started the War of Northern Aggression, every state in the Union thought it could secede. Secessionist movements had even existed prior to the war. No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede. Most of the Founders agreed with secession. The states WERE sovereign.

It's nice to know that your grasp of history and argument is as vapid as your drivel-driven writing style. You present no evidence or logic to support your allegations whatsoever. For example, you state " No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede. " Could you give me a single example of where a ratifying convention asserted this point? Many had reservations about individual liberties which were addressed in the Bill of Rights, and some even tried to make ratification contingent on those amendments. But none of them asserted a right to unilaterally leave the Union. No such debate even occurred at any of the ratification conventions. It seems that as your credentials come out of a Cracker Jack box, your evidence comes on moonbeams from Mars.

As to Lincoln's argument that the Union pre-exists the Constitution (and the Revolution!) , beginning with the 1774 compact, you have no comment. Nor can you explain the repeated phrase "perpetual" in the Articles of Confederation. Even Lincoln's argument that under the law of contracts (assuming the Union to be a voluntary association) the association cannot be dissolved unilaterally.

Three strikes; you're out.

Read my posts and all the experts opinions I posted within them, in this thread, and get educated.

I have read your posts, and quite a tedious task it was. May I suggest that you hire an editor until you learn how to write. Add a fact-checker or researcher while you are at it. These are the most basic still sets of a historian. As for your "experts", my nose still hurts from spewing coffee through my nostrils at your citations. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck would be an improvement. I see no evidence that you have read a single source document or primary source in this discussion and have no clue where to find either. You obviously have no familiarity with the body of Lincoln scholarship and couldn't tell Roy Basler from Bill O'Reilly. One's a respected Lincoln scholar and the other is a crackpot who wrote a bad book about Lincoln. Do you know which is which?

I have cited the works of several experts including the PhD Walter Williams, PhD David Livingston, PhD Thomas DiLorenzo, and the Great PhD Ludwig Von Mises.
.

All are radical revisionists and disdained by mainstream historians.

 

[hortysir]

Just watched it and it comes across as a pure fluff piece.
It focuses almost entirely on the amendment he passed in his second term and not the one he tried to pass during his first term

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right and the libertarians are clearly posting revisionist nonsense.

I like a lot of you folks, but really, come on now.

Lincoln went to war to Preserve The Union, and by the late Spring of 1862, he came to realize that slavery had to be destroyed to save the Union.

He was right.

 

[mudwhistle]

$10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution

I have found people who parrot things like this generally know very little of the man.

.

Are you saying he did not brutally violate the constitution? Suspend the constitution to fit his needs??

The war powers of the Commander In Chief during national emergencies overrules the ability to sue. He suspended Habius Corpus, not the constitution.

 

[hortysir]

The far right and the libertarians are clearly posting revisionist nonsense.

I like a lot of you folks, but really, come on now.

Lincoln went to war to Preserve The Union, and by the late Spring of 1862, he came to realize that slavery had to be destroyed to save the Union.

He was right.

Spring of 1862? Really?

Why'd he write this that summer?????

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;

Why did he push through an amendment that would have allowed slavery to the states, written in such a way that only that state could ever abolish it, in an attempt to lure the south back into the Union?

 

[KissMy]

Historians praise its accuracy, but if you say it's pure BS, they must all be wrong.

The movie was rampant with historical fiction. The recorded votes of senators do not match the way they voted in the movie. First Lady Mary Lincoln, for example, never planted herself in the House Gallery to observe the final tally on the amendment. (Michelle Obama may routinely attend the State of the Union address each year, but such a visit would have been unthinkable in 1865.) Nor did congressmen vote by state delegations—a device that conflates the traditions of national political conventions with those of the House of Representatives. (Until the advent of machine voting, the House voted alphabetically by name.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right and the libertarians are clearly posting revisionist nonsense.

I like a lot of you folks, but really, come on now.

Lincoln went to war to Preserve The Union, and by the late Spring of 1862, he came to realize that slavery had to be destroyed to save the Union.

He was right.

Spring of 1862? Really?

Why'd he write this that summer?????

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;

Why did he push through an amendment that would have allowed slavery to the states, written in such a way that only that state could ever abolish it, in an attempt to lure the south back into the Union?

AL was a master politician who realized he had to guide the people to the place he wished to go. And he did, one step at a time, right into January 1865, when the House ratified the Amendment by two votes.

William Faulkner realized the great sin of America was racism, and AL earlier came to realize, on a decades long journey, that slavery had to be slain and the old slave South murdered.

He did just that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Historians praise its accuracy, but if you say it's pure BS, they must all be wrong.

The movie was rampant with historical fiction. The recorded votes of senators do not match the way they voted in the movie. First Lady Mary Lincoln, for example, never planted herself in the House Gallery to observe the final tally on the amendment. (Michelle Obama may routinely attend the State of the Union address each year, but such a visit would have been unthinkable in 1865.) Nor did congressmen vote by state delegations—a device that conflates the traditions of national political conventions with those of the House of Representatives. (Until the advent of machine voting, the House voted alphabetically by name.

KissMy, yes, surprise, it was a historical fiction: it could be nothing else. And it was not the Senate, it was the House.

 

[hortysir]

The far right and the libertarians are clearly posting revisionist nonsense.

I like a lot of you folks, but really, come on now.

Lincoln went to war to Preserve The Union, and by the late Spring of 1862, he came to realize that slavery had to be destroyed to save the Union.

He was right.

Spring of 1862? Really?

Why'd he write this that summer?????

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;

Why did he push through an amendment that would have allowed slavery to the states, written in such a way that only that state could ever abolish it, in an attempt to lure the south back into the Union?

AL was a master politician who realized he had to guide the people to the place he wished to go. And he did, one step at a time, right into January 1865, when the House ratified the Amendment by two votes.

William Faulkner realized the great sin of America was racism, and AL earlier came to realize, on a decades long journey, that slavery had to be slain and the old slave South murdered.

He did just that.

Prior to his lanky ass taking the throne we were THESE United States.
This freak wanted centralized power and didn't care what kind of bullshit e had to sling to get it.

Just like people called Bush the "Oil President", Lincoln was the "Resource President". Same kind of Republican
He wanted the cotton, citrus, tobacco, etc of the south and didn't care how many had to die to give him total reign over ALL of the states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

AL wanted the South to accept constitutional, electoral process; to recognize that slavery would not extend beyond the Old South; and to respect federal property.

He waited for the Confederates to fire on Old Glory and Ft Sumter, which enraged northern Democrats as well as Republicans. The war was lost the day it began for the Old South.

 

[hortysir]

AL wanted the South to accept constitutional, electoral process; to recognize that slavery would not extend beyond the Old South; and to respect federal property.

He waited for the Confederates to fire on Old Glory and Ft Sumter, which enraged northern Democrats as well as Republicans. The war was lost the day it began for the Old South.

Like I said.... Bigger and more centralized government.
No wonder Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln

 

[paperview]

The far right and the libertarians are clearly posting revisionist nonsense.

I like a lot of you folks, but really, come on now.

Lincoln went to war to Preserve The Union, and by the late Spring of 1862, he came to realize that slavery had to be destroyed to save the Union.

He was right.

Spring of 1862? Really?

Why'd he write this that summer?????

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;

Why did he push through an amendment that would have allowed slavery to the states, written in such a way that only that state could ever abolish it, in an attempt to lure the south back into the Union?

That letter AL sent Horace Greeley ends with this:

"...and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours, A. LINCOLN."

http://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/n...-greeley-slavery-union-restoration-union.html


People often leave that part out.

And your facts on the Corwin Amendment are wrong.

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Corwin Amendment was before AL became president, and he would never have permitted it.