Posted on 02/11/2026 10:47:43 AM PST by T Ruth
Director Steven Spielberg, whom I introduced last week [in 2012] at Gettysburg at ceremonies marking the 149th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s greatest speech, said he was deeply humbled to be delivering an address on that history-making spot.
***
… Daniel Day-Lewis gives the definitive portrayal of our time, perhaps ever, of Honest Abe.
For people like me, who have spent their lives studying Abraham Lincoln, the film is chilling — as if he’s really come to life.
Day-Lewis does it by avoiding the traps most Lincoln actors fall into, the stoic, “Hall of Presidents”-esque stereotype that probably most Americans imagine.
There are no moving pictures of Lincoln, no recordings of his voice. But after his death, everyone was Lincoln’s best friend, and there are descriptions of everything from his accent to his gait.
The most important thing is the voice. Far from having a stentorian, Gregory Peck-like bass, Lincoln’s was a high, piercing tenor. Those who attended his speeches even described it as shrill and unpleasant for the first 10 minutes, until he got warmed up (or his endless stories managed to cow them into submission).
***
Few great people are appreciated in their time. And it’s good to remember that, no matter how right the decisions seem now, they were hard-fought then.
“I wanted — impossibly — to bring Lincoln back from his sleep of one-and-a-half centuries,” Steven Spielberg said at Gettysburg, “even if only for two-and-one-half hours, and even if only in a cinematic dream.”
***
Harold Holzer is one of the country’s leading authorities on Abraham Lincoln. ...
[At the end of the article Holzer gives thumbnail reviews of all prior Lincoln films, ranking them from worst to best, which Holzer considers to be Spielberg’s.]
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I assume you like money? Most people like money. I think the Southern slave holders back in the 1850s liked money too, so I think they would do whatever brought them the most value for their effort.
Slaves cost around $1,000.00 in 1850 money, which is roughly equivalent to $100,000.00 today. If you have the choice between growing wheat or cotton, you would be a d@mned fool if you chose wheat. The money was in cotton. That's why it was the dominant use of slaves in that era.
People in that era were not stupid. They would not waste slaves in Kansas when they could make higher profits by using them in Mississippi or Louisiana.
Well that *IS* the constant propaganda, and people look around for evidence to support it. They ususually settle on the 3 or 4 secession statements made by a few of the minor states, and ignore the fact the other 7 states did not make such statements.
They also ignore the fact the Northern dominated congress voted *FOR* the Corwin amendment which made slavery permanently legal in the United States.
For some reason, the Southern states didn't seem to care that the Northern states voted for permanent slavery in the United States, so this would imply that "slavery" wasn't really the issue that was motivating them to escape from the North.
On the other hand, it is now obvious that becoming independent would gain the Southern states an immediate 65 Million dollars per year in money pumped into their economy rather than going to Washington DC. Additionally, they would get out from under the laws that required them to use Northern shipping to ship their products to Europe. They would also get out from laws that required them to buy Northern products, or pay hefty penalties for buying the better quality European products.
All in all, there was approximately a 700 million dollar per year benefit for them to leave the Union, and say what you want, I think most people vote their wallet.
Why would any of them not want an additional 700 million per year coming into their pockets?
LOL, so you can't read? :)
2. That the South generated 72% of that money with their cotton exports?
They generated 50% of that money with their cotton exports. The remainder was created through their exports of Tobacco, Indigo, Sugar and Hemp. The total was about 72% of all trade.
Do I have that correct?
No. You apparently have a serious misunderstanding as demonstrated by your "1." statement.
Now this might come as a big surprise to you, but the exports of cotton tobacco, indigo, sugar, and hemp did not generate even one dollar of revenue for the Federal government. Not one dollar.
Do you know why that was the case?
So there we re a bunch of stupid slave owners in Maryland , Kentucky, Delaware, and saintly ol Virginia? Hummmm?y
Do you know why that was the case?
Yes. Because you are naive enough to believe Europe will give us stuff for free.
You don't grasp how "trade" works. You think it's magic or something.
It's an odd position for someone to have on a conservative website, because conservatives generally understand how money is made.
Right next to Kansas are they?
What’s odd is that you think the South paid taxes on their exports. Talk about not understanding how money works.
Do you realize that they grow a lot of cotton in Kansas… over 100,000 acres worth. I Never heard of cotton in Maryland or Delaware. Seems there’s a whole lot of stuff you have no idea about.
“Thank God that King George III was not so willing to kill so many people. He decided to just let us go rather than continue the killing.”
Well, this is not the topic of this thread, but…
I like Thomas Payne’s words regarding the British Navy.
He was there. King George did not just let us go.
Britain was just spread too thin across the world.
Below is from “Common Sense”.
The English list of ships of war, is long and formidable, but not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for service, numbers of them are not in being; yet their names are pompously continued in the list, if only a plank be left of the ship: and not a fifth part of such as are fit for service, can be spared on any one station at one time. The East and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and other parts, over which Britain extends her claim, make large demands upon her navy. From a mixture of prejudice and inattention, we have contracted a false notion respecting the navy of England, and have talked as if we should have the whole of it to encounter at once, and, for that reason, supposed that we must have one as large; which not being instantly practicable, has been made use of by a set of disguised Tories to discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be further from truth than this; for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval force of Britain, she would be by far an over-match for her; because, as we neither have, nor claim any foreign dominion, our whole force would be employed on our own coast, where we should, in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had three or four thousand miles to sail over, before they could attack us, and the same distance to return in order to refit and recruit. And although Britain, by her fleet, hath a check over our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over her trade to the West Indies, which, by laying in the neighborhood of the Continent, lies entirely at its mercy.
What is odd is that someone on a conservative website doesn't grasp the fact you don't get imports without exports to pay for them.
Except for rare and temporary exceptions, exports must always equal imports, or you have this thing called a "trade deficit."
But for all intents and purposes, exports = imports.
They do now but you couldn't do it back then.
It is the army which takes and holds ground.
“They also ignore the fact the Northern dominated congress voted *FOR* the Corwin amendment which made slavery permanently legal in the United States.”
Yes, but only in the states where it already existed. That was just confirming the government had no Constitutional power to intefere with slavery WHERE IT EXISTED.
Right, it was about tariffs. A debate about tariffs made Prston Brooks so angry he invaded the Senate and bat down Charles Sumner, and Congressmen were carrying weapons in the Capitol because the tariff debate was so contentious. Just stop with the green eyeshade stuff. Arguing about tariffs wasn’t going to cause the anger and bitterness caused by slavery.
Or any other state that wanted it.
Right, it was about tariffs. A debate about tariffs made Prston Brooks so angry he invaded the Senate and bat down Charles Sumner, and Congressmen were carrying weapons in the Capitol because the tariff debate was so contentious.
Charles Sumner got his very well deserved beating because he insinuating that Brooks' uncle was having sex with slaves.
At that time in history, it was probably the worst possible insult. During his speech, Sumner's own friends told him to stop before he got himself killed.
This obnoxious loud mouth from Massachusetts, F***ed Around and Found Out. Just like all the other liberals shooting their mouths off, they don't think anything is going to happen to them until it does.
Andrew Jackson would have shot that man to death.
And stop saying "tariffs". This was way bigger than the measly 65 million per year the South was paying into the US Treasury. By getting out from Union laws, they would be getting out from under the forced patronage of Northern Shipping, Warehousing, Banking, insurance, and compelled purchasing of Northern industrial products. The South stood to gain nearly 700 million per year in extra income, while the North was going to lose that income.
You think the North cared about slaves? Or "Union"? No! They wanted that f***ing MONEY!!!!!
They started a war with the South to KEEP THAT MONEY FLOWING INTO THEIR POCKETS!!!!
This is why Republicans had no troubles voting for permanent slavery, because they thought that would keep the South in the Union, and keep them paying all that money into the North.
Nonsense, the south wanted to keep their slaves and the only way to do that was ensure there were enough slave states to block an eventual Constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. That was the reason they wantd to annex Cuba, expand slavery to Kansas, and maybe annex more of Mexico. The free states were against expanding slavery. That’s what the fight was about, slavery. All the other arguments: tariffs, the Pacific railroad, homesteading, etc. were offshoots of the slavery fight. Yes, Sumner did insult Brooks’ rlative but as I said the anger and rancor was from the slavery controversy, not about money.
I don’t know or even care where you studied economics, but your statement above is absolutely false. It’s nice to have them in balance, but it is not a requirement.
Now again I ask, how did the South pay 72% of taxes. How do you conger that number.
Are you amenable to reason, or do you just want to believe stuff because it makes you feel better?
There were 16 slaves states in the Union in 1861. It takes a 3/4ths majority of the states to pass a constitutional amendment. That means whatever number of states are opposed, it takes three times that number to override their objections.
So what is 3 times 16? It's 48. It would take 48 states to override the objection of 16 states. How many states in the Union would that require? We would have to have 16 + 48 states in the Union, which would be 64 states. We don't have 64 states right now!
We had 34 states in 1861. There is no way in hell that 34 states could pass a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, and if you believe that could happen, you absolutely do not grasp the political situation in that era.
The Corwin Amendment, which does the very opposite of what you think might have happened, would have easily passed had the Southern states voted to ratify it. The United States would have had permanent slavery, thanks to the Northern Republicans who passed that amendment through the House and Senate.
That was the reason they wantd to annex Cuba, expand slavery to Kansas, and maybe annex more of Mexico.
They didn't want to "expand" slavery to Kansas, they wanted Kansas to side with them in congress so that they could roll back the laws that were costing them so much money and benefiting the North at their expense.
Yeah, they wanted Cuba and Mexico for slavery, because slavery was making lots of money for them, so of course they wanted to expand into places that could actually grow cotton and other valuable products.
But you couldn't do any of that in Kansas.
The free states were against expanding slavery.
That's what they told the rubes, but the reality was they were against allowing the South to have any more political power in Washington DC, because they were making *LOTS OF MONEY* by outvoting the South on laws that made them rich at the South's expense.
That’s what the fight was about, slavery.
That's what the Liberals told the stupid people to get them to support it. The fight was over money and power, just like the fight today is not about Illegal immigrants, it's about money and power which they get through keeping the border open and getting census apportionment from the illegals, and illegal votes from the illegals.
If you think the modern fight is about "illegals", you are naive. The *LIBERALS* don't care about the illegals, just like the *LIBERALS* didn't care about the slaves. They are just useful tools to get them power and money, and that is all the *LIBERALS* care about.
All the other arguments: tariffs, the Pacific railroad, homesteading, etc. were offshoots of the slavery fight.
They were offshoots of the *MONEY* fight. If your Northern *LIBERALS* cared so much about the slaves, why did they vote to keep them in chains forever? (See Corwin Amendment.)
They literally voted to perpetuate slavery indefinitely. They weren't trying to free slaves. They were trying to keep the South controlled so it couldn't vote it's way out of the financial system they created, but they didn't actually care about the slaves at all.
Yes, Sumner did insult Brooks’ rlative but as I said the anger and rancor was from the slavery controversy, not about money.
You should read more history. Andrew Jackson shot men for insulting his wife. In those days, an obnoxious mouth would get you killed. People absolutely would not put up with someone talking shit at them.
It may be a modern thing to have a massive trade deficit, but back in that era, nobody wanted IOUs for their goods. They wanted payment and quickly!
You are dancing around facts you don't like. The Europeans sent trade goods across the Atlantic to *PAY FOR* the stuff they bought from America, 72% of which came from the South.
And we actually have the records from this era. We know what the trade balance was back in 1860. I've seen the numbers, and they had small imbalances in them. There were not lingering massive trade imbalances. Everything was getting paid for by mutual exchange of trade goods.
You just don't like the fact that I am absolutely right, and the South was paying the *VAST MAJORITY OF TAXES* to this nation. You don't like it because it puts the South in the position of being the victim and the North in the position of being the bad guy for rigging the game the way they did.
Well guess what? That's exactly what happened. The South was getting continuously raped by the North financially, and the North had the power in Congress so that the South couldn't do anything about it.
Which is why the South seceded.
But I don't think you can grasp the truth, because you don't want that to be the truth. You would prefer to believe a comforting fiction than an ugly truth.
Most people do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.