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

[Toro]

The movie is evil because it attempts to justify dictatorship.

The common people are depicted as ignorant racists. The people are only redeemed when they worship the politicians.

The politicians are saints. Whatever lies the politicians tell, whatever corruption they embrace, whatever rights they dispose of, even if they kill 100s of 1000s they are justified because the politicians motives are supposed to be pure.

In reality Lincoln was a white supremacist who wanted to send African Americans to foreign colonies. Lincoln fought an ugly war (which included a large number of civilian deaths, torture of suspected deserters, brutal POW camps) to maintain the supremacy of the central government.

Is that any justification for all the suffering? If Quebec decided to leave the rest of Canada and the Ottawa government fought a war to force Quebec to submit, would any reasonable person defend the national government?

If the frogs wanna go, it's on the 1867 borders.

 

[Toro]

If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.

 

[hortysir]

If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.

And the South wasn't allowed to leave because of its prosperity

 

[Rogue 9]

If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.

And the South wasn't allowed to leave because of its prosperity

The South wasn't allowed to leave because throwing a shitfit and breaking up the country because of losing a single election and then getting away with it would spell the end of republican government in the world, something understood and expounded upon by nearly every political leader and thinker of the day not in the Slave Power - some of them, such as Napoleon III and many members of the British nobility, who wanted to resume colonization of the Americas, with great glee. This is why the Constitution specifically places the power to regulate and dispose of U.S. territory in the hands of Congress, not the states, and why the Founders who wrote on the subject for posterity decried it as an unconscionable evil - Washington, in his Circular to the States, wrote, "That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly." During the Nullification Crisis, when South Carolina first threatened secession, James Madison wrote that the idea that the Constitution (which he largely wrote!) would permit such a thing was so mad that he was shocked that it was necessary to discuss it, saying that the question was simply whether a state, any more than an individual, had a right to renege on its contracts.

As to Southern prosperity, that's a joke and a half. Southern planters were rich because they owned loads of real property (much of in in the form of human chattel, let us not forget), but there was basically no middle class economic activity in the Antebellum South and liquid assets lagged far behind the northern industrial states. The idea that they were kept around simply because they were so much more prosperous than the North (the North that they couldn't even begin to outproduce in terms of war materiel, something that an actually more prosperous region should have been able to do) is laughable.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.

And the South wasn't allowed to leave because of its prosperity

more importantly the arrogance and power of the Federal government was reinforced by its victory over states and individuals rights in Civil War. All conservatives then must have mixed feelings about the Civil War.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.

wrong!! Slavery probably would have disappeared there just like it did everywhere. If the north accepted escaped slaves as free men, slavery would have been impossible for long! THere is no way to justify 600k dead and the arrogant central government it produced!

 

[Thunderbird]

The South wasn't allowed to leave because throwing a shitfit and breaking up the country because of losing a single election and then getting away with it would spell the end of republican government in the world, something understood and expounded upon by nearly every political leader and thinker of the day

If you believe in democracy you must acknowledge any sizable region within a larger political entity has the right to secede if that region so desires.

Ireland had the right to separate from the British Empire.
India had the right to separate from the British Empire.
The U.S. had the right to separate from the British Empire.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
Ukraine had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
Quebec has the right to separate from the rest of Canada.

Only a dictator would deny this fundamental right.

No apocalyptic "end of republican government" need follow such separation.

During the Nullification Crisis, when South Carolina first threatened secession, James Madison wrote

You ignore the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The South wasn't allowed to leave because throwing a shitfit and breaking up the country because of losing a single election and then getting away with it would spell the end of republican government in the world, something understood and expounded upon by nearly every political leader and thinker of the day

If you believe in democracy you must acknowledge any sizable region within a larger political entity has the right to secede if that region so desires.

Ireland had the right to separate from the British Empire.
India had the right to separate from the British Empire.
The U.S. had the right to separate from the British Empire.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
Ukraine had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
Quebec has the right to separate from the rest of Canada.

Only a dictator would deny this fundamental right.

No apocalyptic "end of republican government" need follow such separation.

During the Nullification Crisis, when South Carolina first threatened secession, James Madison wrote

You ignore the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

No apocalyptic "end of republican government" need follow such separation.

true enough!! there is no way it turned out well with 600k dead and the much more liberal authoritarian government we have today!

 

[Rogue 9]

If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.

wrong!! Slavery probably would have disappeared there just like it did everywhere. If the north accepted escaped slaves as free men, slavery would have been impossible for long! THere is no way to justify 600k dead and the arrogant central government it produced!

I quote the Confederate Constitution:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Legal emancipation was never coming under the government the Slave Power created for itself. Any contention that it was is pure fantasy.

The South wasn't allowed to leave because throwing a shitfit and breaking up the country because of losing a single election and then getting away with it would spell the end of republican government in the world, something understood and expounded upon by nearly every political leader and thinker of the day

If you believe in democracy you must acknowledge any sizable region within a larger political entity has the right to secede if that region so desires.

Ireland had the right to separate from the British Empire.
India had the right to separate from the British Empire.
The U.S. had the right to separate from the British Empire.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
Ukraine had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
Quebec has the right to separate from the rest of Canada.

Only a dictator would deny this fundamental right.

No apocalyptic "end of republican government" need follow such separation.

You are disputed by John Stuart Mill, in his autobiography:

Before this, however, the state of public affairs had become extremely critical, by the commencement of the American civil war. My strongest feelings were engaged in this struggle, which, I felt from the beginning, was destined to be a turning point, for good or evil, of the course of human affairs for an indefinite duration. Having been a deeply interested observer of the Slavery quarrel in America, during the many years that preceded the open breach, I knew that it was in all its stages an aggressive enterprise of the slave-owners to extend the territory of slavery; under the combined influences of pecuniary interest, domineering temper, and the fanaticism of a class for its class privileges, influences so fully and powerfully depicted in the admirable work of my friend Professor Cairnes, "The Slave Power." Their success, if they succeeded, would be a victory of the powers of evil which would give courage to the enemies of progress and damp the spirits of its friends all over the civilized world, while it would create a formidable military power, grounded on the worst and most anti-social form of the tyranny of men over men, and, by destroying for a long time the prestige of the great democratic republic, would give to all the privileged classes of Europe a false confidence, probably only to be extinguished in blood.

Considering that the man was the foremost classical liberal (i.e. small government) political thinker of his day, I should think he had quite a handle on what the reaction to a successful Confederacy would have been. I remind you that Napoleon III took advantage of the Civil War's distraction of the United States to conquer Mexico and install Ferdinand Maximilian of the Habsburg dynasty as its emperor; behavior that would have continued had the United States been broken up and weakened to the point of being unable to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.

During the Nullification Crisis, when South Carolina first threatened secession, James Madison wrote

You ignore the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

No I don't. At no point do they advocate secession.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.

wrong!! Slavery probably would have disappeared there just like it did everywhere. If the north accepted escaped slaves as free men, slavery would have been impossible for long! THere is no way to justify 600k dead and the arrogant central government it produced!

I quote the Confederate Constitution:

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Legal emancipation was never coming under the government the Slave Power created for itself. Any contention that it was is pure fantasy.

it disappeared all over the world and would have here too, especially if the north accepted slaves as free men. The underground would have grown and grown as would have the moral outrage.

 

[Thunderbird]

You are disputed by John Stuart Mill, in his autobiography:

Considering that the man was the foremost classical liberal (i.e. small government) political thinker of his day,

J.S. Mill was an imperialist and a racist. Not unlike Lincoln.

He thought the natives of India were inflicted with "a general disposition to deceit and perfidy".

He claimed: "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion."

Check out the article: John Stuart Mill and Liberal Imperialism

 

[Rogue 9]

You are disputed by John Stuart Mill, in his autobiography:

Considering that the man was the foremost classical liberal (i.e. small government) political thinker of his day,

J.S. Mill was an imperialist and a racist. Not unlike Lincoln.

He thought the natives of India were inflicted with "a general disposition to deceit and perfidy".

He claimed: "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion."

Check out the article: John Stuart Mill and Liberal Imperialism

A blatant ad hominem. Regardless of Mill's opinion of the Indians, he is still an authoritative source on European governments and how they would react to Confederate victory.

He may have been a racist and looked down upon African and Asian peoples (in fact I don't doubt it; it would be shocking for a Western man of the 19th century not to have that outlook), but Jefferson Davis and all who served under him thought that the proper state of non-whites was as chattel livestock, with no thought whatever to their improvement (however mistaken Mill may have been on that point). If you wish to make this about personalities, the South will still come out the worse. Mill's writings were handy, but he was not the only one; I can quote the same opinion on the importance of the war from Napoleon III, Lincoln himself, several members of the British House of Lords, and others. Whether one thought the demise of the United States and representative government with it was good or bad, it was widely believed that it would be the result of Confederate victory. And not without reason; the French Republic had fallen to the exact same fate a few decades earlier and descended into autocracy; the example of his own nation was not lost upon Napoleon and at the time the United States was the only republic in the world powerful enough to oppose European conquest.

 

[Toro]

If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.

wrong!! Slavery probably would have disappeared there just like it did everywhere. If the north accepted escaped slaves as free men, slavery would have been impossible for long! THere is no way to justify 600k dead and the arrogant central government it produced!

Of course slavery would have ended - eventually - but the South practiced legal segregation well into the 1960s as part of the United States. There is no reason at all to think that they would have abandoned Segregation earlier had they been their own country. They would have continued it long after. It would have been an American South Africa, shamed, shunned and boycotted by the rest of the world, and would have been even poorer and more backwards.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The South wasn't allowed to leave because throwing a shitfit and breaking up the country because of losing a single election and then getting away with it would spell the end of republican government in the world, something understood and expounded upon by nearly every political leader and thinker of the day

If you believe in democracy you must acknowledge any sizable region within a larger political entity has the right to secede if that region so desires.

Ireland had the right to separate from the British Empire.
India had the right to separate from the British Empire.
The U.S. had the right to separate from the British Empire.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
Ukraine had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
Quebec has the right to separate from the rest of Canada.

Only a dictator would deny this fundamental right.

No apocalyptic "end of republican government" need follow such separation.

During the Nullification Crisis, when South Carolina first threatened secession, James Madison wrote

You ignore the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

That was more than 30 years earlier, and if JM thought they applied, he would have included them.

 

[Thunderbird]

he is still an authoritative source on European governments and how they would react to Confederate victory.

Liberal Lord John Russell leaned toward recognition of the Confederacy.

it would be shocking for a Western man of the 19th century not to have that outlook),

So Mill and Lincoln were racists. So your attempt to demonize the South as uniquely evil looks foolish.

Whether one thought the demise of the United States and representative government with it was good or bad, it was widely believed that it would be the result of Confederate victory.

The Confederacy was a republic and would be as likely as the Union to aid other republics. What republics did the Union give birth to or maintain in the late 19th century? Do you think a sizable region has the right to separate from a larger political entity, yes or no?

And not without reason; the French Republic had fallen to the exact same fate a few decades earlier and descended into autocracy;

The French Republic descended into the autocracy of Napoleon I. Inappropriate to blame foreign powers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The statement ". . . to demonize the South as uniquely evil looks foolish" is grounded in the falsehood that anybody used or implied the concept of "uniquely."

Since the falsehood was deliberate, then it may be concluded it was evil and foolish.

 

[Rogue 9]

he is still an authoritative source on European governments and how they would react to Confederate victory.

Liberal Lord John Russell leaned toward recognition of the Confederacy.

This isn't news. Britain was a colonial power, and the United States kept it from continuing colonization of the western hemisphere. There were many, many voices in the British Parliament in favor of recognizing the Confederacy before the Emancipation Proclamation made it politically impossible.

it would be shocking for a Western man of the 19th century not to have that outlook),

So Mill and Lincoln were racists. So your attempt to demonize the South as uniquely evil looks foolish.

Lincoln and Mill were racists. Jefferson Davis, Robert Lee, and Alexander Stephens were slavers. There is a stark difference.

Whether one thought the demise of the United States and representative government with it was good or bad, it was widely believed that it would be the result of Confederate victory.

The Confederacy was a republic and would be as likely as the Union to aid other republics. What republics did the Union give birth to or maintain in the late 19th century? Do you think a sizable region has the right to separate from a larger political entity, yes or no?

The Confederacy was an illegitimate body formed through blatantly unconstitutional means that existed for the sole purpose of the preservation and expansion of the institution of slavery. Confederate victory would weaken the United States to the point where it would be unable to enforce its ban on further colonization of the Americas; having a powerful enemy actively competing for territory sharing a large land border would change the entire course of U.S. politics and foreign policy.

And any right to separate from a nation depends on the circumstances. Even our own Declaration of Independence is careful to note that such a separation must not be made for "light or transient causes," and the catalyst for the Slave Power's secession was a single presidential election.

And not without reason; the French Republic had fallen to the exact same fate a few decades earlier and descended into autocracy;

The French Republic descended into the autocracy of Napoleon I. Inappropriate to blame foreign powers.

You miss the point. It is an example. The belief that a free people cannot be self-governing had great currency in the mid-19th century, and the fates of the French First and Second Republics gave credence to the idea; one republic had already fallen (twice, both times to a man named Napoleon) and the fall of another would give those who espoused the doctrine that men must be governed by a strong autocracy and are unfit to choose their leaders proof that their ideas were right, along with removing a formidable barrier to implementing those ideas.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Confederacy was an illegitimate body formed through blatantly unconstitutional means

and how do you know that' you did not say? Sounds like it was very clear in the Constutution...somewhere.

 

[Rogue 9]

The Confederacy was an illegitimate body formed through blatantly unconstitutional means

and how do you know that' you did not say? Sounds like it was very clear in the Constutution...somewhere.

Mainly because it is. Observe:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

So if insurrection is legal, why is the federal government empowered to suppress it, hmmm?

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Confederacy is out.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

As is keeping all those troops they were keeping. Following so far?

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

So, who's running the Army again? Ain't the states.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Now then, who was levying war against the United States? Oh, that's right...

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This one's the kicker. When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Secession is such a violation. Here is that Clause, in case you've forgotten:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There's your constitutional argument for the unconstitutionality of secession. If need be, I can bring forward multiple Federalist papers and letters from the members of the Constitutional Convention clearly spelling out that allowing secession was not their intent. As I pointed out above, James Madison thought the idea was so preposterous that it was a wonder that he should have to point out why it's wrong. He also pointed out that the people agitating for the "states' right" of secession at the time (the Nullification Crisis) would just as surely object to the same principle turned on it's head; a majority of the other states voting to kick one state out. Secessionism was never a stand on principle; it was always merely a political tool of blackmail to force the federal government to pander to the interests of the region threatening it.

Actually, here is that letter of Madison's, just to get the citation in here.

The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.

The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them.

 

[Thunderbird]

This isn't news. Britain was a colonial power, and the United States kept it from continuing colonization of the western hemisphere.

Some liberal imperialists, like Mill, saw the Union as a partner in imperialism. Some liberals sided with the South.

Lincoln and Mill were racists. Jefferson Davis, Robert Lee, and Alexander Stephens were slavers. There is a stark difference.

Lincoln prosecuted a war which killed 100's of 1000's. Mill served an empire which kept down Africans, Indians, etc. Not so stark.

The Confederacy was an illegitimate body formed through blatantly unconstitutional means

Keep repeating this and it might become true.

Confederate victory would weaken the United States to the point where it would be unable to enforce its ban on further colonization of the Americas;

Or prevent the US from over involvement in the affairs of other American nations. The British and the native people themselves fought against colonization by other European powers.

And any right to separate from a nation depends on the circumstances.

Do you think a sizable region has the right to separate from a larger political entity, yes or no? Please stop ducking the question.

and the fall of another would give those who espoused the doctrine that men must be governed by a strong autocracy and are unfit to choose their leaders proof that their ideas were right,

lol Like Lincoln's autocracy?

You fail to see that Mill and Lincoln were racist, power-hungry, anti-democratic imperialists.