Posted on 11/28/2012 2:03:03 PM PST by NKP_Vet
Steven Spielberg’s film LINCOLN clearly takes the politically correct, Northern view of Lincoln and wraps it up in the shroud of the moral fight against slavery. Thus, it decides mostly to focus on Lincoln’s fight in January 1865 to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery in the United States and its territories. Though the portrayal of this fight has its nuances, it doesn’t include the extensive evidence suggesting that Lincoln could be an ambitious, secretive tyrant. It also excludes such facts that, just before the Civil War began, President Lincoln had actually expressed support for a Thirteenth Amendment to perpetuate slavery, which had just been passed under his predecessor to encourage Southern states to stay in the Union. Sadly, LINCOLN also contains a surprising amount of anachronistic foul language and a surprising lack of uplifting religious references.
(Excerpt) Read more at movieguide.org ...
that’s right it is always important to read books about how theSouth was so abused by the evil Lincoln, who after all is a bad man for wanting to keep the union together.
The Civil War was just that....right or not the South lost and hence the union was and is preserved.
and those same southerners some how think that the south will rise again....ifit does it may look more like the welfare state that O wants us to become.
The bitchiness that is exhibited over this issue looks for all the world like Palestinians claiming that Jews have no historical roots in Jerusalem....it is old and boring and oh so beside the point
As he defended a freedwoman and her children threatened with a return to slavery and abolitionists in the "underground railroad" who harbored runaway slaves. Lincoln dealt mostly with technical issues of the law and his performance was regarded as weak, unispired, inadequate. That doesn't justify his taking the case, but he was doing what lawyers do -- if they only represent clients who are innocent and morally without reproach, they wouldn't last long.
The term “civil war” does not imply opponents are fighting for control of the whole. It merely means a war within one country, as opposed to a foreign war.
The war was by no means inevitable. I have no idea whatsoever why anyone would think it was, unless they were general fatalists.
We sure have some wackadoos on FR these days (I’m not referring to you, Tublecane).
“The South was getting richer than the North”
That’s almost right, but I’d put it this way. The South could’ve thrived alone, whereas without the tariff northern industry would’ve collapsed. A free trade zone in the South was deadly to Republican interests, which is why they made their stand at the major Atlantic seaport at Charleston and why in hus first innaugural Lincoln gave them a choice between taxes and war.
Black slavery was the heart of the struggle between the states. As the history of “Bleeding Kansas” attests, the issue could not be resolved through the ballot. The South demanded that its “system” be allowed everywhere in the Union. To avoid session in 1850, the North —and at this time this included the Border states—agreed to split the difference, granting the southern half of the Mexican Cession to be slave territory, along with Texas but excepting Southern California. They also passed the Fugitive Law Act, which was as blatant a violation of States Rights as one can imagine, because its violated the principle that the State was the basic political unit of the Union. Under the Constitution, the State was the primary protector of the rights of its inhabitants. So the South was willing to violate the sovereignty of the northern states in the interest of its “Peculiar Institution.”
“Southern states vowed to secede if Lincoln was elected President - BECAUSE HE WAS A REPUBLICAN!”
They may have so vowed, but in reality it was more than Lincoln winning and being a Pub. He won without carrying a single southern state, which ominously foretold of future northern domination of Washington.
But Kansas was resolved through the ballot. Arguing it presaged the war holds about as much water as saying John Brown revealed the North’s secret plans.
You bring up the Missouri Compromise, but for some strange reason fail to mention that it worked and along with Dred Scott it practically settled the issue of the westward expansion or nonexpansion of slavery. Despite countless history books, that was not at issue. Slavery had nowhere to go, at least not in that direction.
As for the Fugitive Slave Act, it did override state prerogatives, but it was not destructive of state rights or the federal system as you imply. The federal government had various powers wand no one of them makes the states slaves to it. Especially not federal powers that people generally assent to, and despite abolitionists the fugitive slave law was not unpopular. Republicans in fact proposed strengthening it through constitutional ammendment.
When they make that movie i'll go see it. The last movie i paid to see was Act of Valor.
LOL! The Michigan origination claim I read was cited by Hillsdale College, which is in Michigan! No bias there, right? /sarc
“The founding event of the Republican Party is a matter of some dispute. Some point to a mass meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin in March 1854; others cite a later gathering in Jackson, Michigan. In any event, there appeared to be a spontaneous outpouring of anger following passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Large public meetings were held in numerous Northern communities, some of which used the term “Republican.””
The above is per an internet site: United States History
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h141.html
Where ever the GOP originally sprung-up, it was certainly driven by the horrors of slavery.
The VOLUNTARY UNION of states was NEVER INTENDED to be a Union that a state could not get out of if they thought their interests were not being met. Secession was a RIGHT of each and every state and every Founding Father believed in the rights of the states to leave the VOLUNTARY UNION if they so wished. This is documented, historical fact! Jefferson would have rolled over his grave if he had known a two-bit railroad lawyer, with hardly any education whatsover, started a damn war to FORCE the states to stay in a VOLUNTARY UNION. Lincoln destroyed the country that our Founding Fathers fought and died for. Anyone with a basic understanding of American history and a knowledge of the founding documents knows that Lincoln was a tyrant, a big government socialist, who consolidated ALL POWER in Washington, DC, something the Founding Fathers fought so hard to prevent from ever happening.
Really? Well then, show me where in the U.S.Conatitution secession is mentioned.
http://www.amazon.com/War-Crimes-Against-Southern-Civilians/dp/158980466X
Mr. Cisco’s flawlessly documented expose of Union Army war crimes rips the carefully constructed facade off Lincoln’s “Army of Emancipators.” Far from being an army of liberators, Union troops burned, raped, ravaged, and terrorized civilians from east to west. The brutality long overshadowed by federally-sponsored propaganda of Andersonville and Fort Pillow is at last revealed by newspaper accounts, letters, and diaries, many from Washington’s own National Archives.
“We believe in a war of extermination,” said Union Brigadier General Lane, whose heroic exploits include the arrest and deaths of wives and teenaged girls whose only crime were blood ties to Confederate guerrillas, the expulsion of tens of thousands of civilians from whole Missouri counties and the complete destruction of their property.
General Sherman deliberately turned his back as men pillaged Georgia cities, even allowing them to exhume graves in search of valuables. Free African-Americans as well as southern whites suffered the loss of homes and property, many their lives. The arrival of the northern army of liberation also meant rape and abuse for women of color. Regardless of color or gender, no southerner was spared.
Mr. Cisco’s scholarly work is a must-read for serious students of the war and professional historians. Politically correct history cannot hide the sins of the past, and a true examination of facts must occur before complete understanding of America’s most tragic war can take place. Five stars.
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.