Has anyone watched the “Abraham Lincoln” documentary? (Sunday)

Author | 2/21/22 | the OlLine Rebel

[Gaffer]

I remember in 1998 when 400 ‘Constitutional Scholars’ took out a full page ad in the New York Times in support of a beleaguered President Clinton that essentially said “a BJ is not sex” and therefore not a high crime or misdemeanor.

Doris Kearns Goodwin was one of the 400 signatories.

[walkingdead]

Certainly the tariffs on the south buying cheaper european goods was part of the problem, doubly bad when europe retaliated by banning import of cotton from the south.

All part of the puzzle the european financial powers were working to seperate us in my humble opinion. So I agree, all about money/power. Could not have the United States prospering without control of a central bank…. and we had just tossed our second national bank about 25yrs before. Jackson killed the first obviously and they hired a hitman to kill him. Thankfully both pistols misfired.

We were becoming an example of how great things can be without centralized banking, and that could not be allowed to happen. And if they couldn’t have a centralized bank in the US then start a war and have us go into debt to them.

I think the loan offers to Lincoln were 24%-36% interest. Which is where the greenbacks came into play, debt free money. As someone once said, if the government can back a bond it can back a dollar bill. One incurs interest to the people the other does not. Those greenbacks were in circulation until the 90s if I recall correctly and we paid interest to no one.

[Swanks]

Don’t be such a moron. Ken Burns isn’t 100 miles within CSpan Civil War. These are talks at civil war symposiums such as at Gettysburg College or Longwood Univ and other ground zero sources of Civil War study. Prof Allen Guelzo, Caroline Janney, Peter Carmichael, James Robertson. Many others.

[laweeks]

Won’t watch anything with Obammy in it

[Hootowl]

Because there was no way to amplify sound back then orators intentionally pitched their voices high so that the sound would carry.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is the most absurd “analysis” I’ve ever heard as to the cause of the war.

Then the fault, dear friend, lies with you. The corrupt crony capitalism government of Lincoln used propaganda to successfully misdirect everyone about the financial doings and made them focus on that shiny bauble of slavery.

The real story is in the money and where it was going and where it was coming from.

Here is where it was going.

72% of that money represented by those tariff revenues was produced by the South, yet it was all going through New York, Boston and Washington DC pockets.

Secession would not only cut off that money stream to the rich and powerful, it would destroy their domestic businesses by flooding the market with European produced goods.

Let me clarify once more. The entire rest of the nation only produced 28% of export goods to balance the nation's imports. The rest of that value was produced by the Southern states.

The war was about cutting off the rich and powerful northeastern elite (same bastards still running the nation today) at the knees.

This is why they offered the Corwin Amendment, which would have kept slavery legal indefinitely. They didn't care about slavery. They cared about the flow of money into their own pockets.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hamiltonian versus Jeffersonian. Therein lies the real antagonism between the two sides.

Jackson was right to kill the bank. It was the camel's nose in the tent for corrupt influence on the government.

Now we are living with defacto corrupt influence in our government and phony money which they print to their heart's content.

Hillary (from Chicago) gets away with serious corruption and federal crimes, while people walking through a building get over a year of confinement and phony trials.

Some of us aren't aware of who the "elites" are. Some of us aren't even aware that there are "elites."

[DiogenesLamp]

It was first and foremost caused by it, fought about it and we’re still dealing with the repercussions of it.

Have you ever heard of the "Corwin Amendment"?

That one thing alone proves to any reasonable person, that the war was *NOT* about slavery.

The entire representation of the Northern states *and* the President does not offer permanent slavery to all states that want it, and then pretend they fought a war to stop slavery.

Lincoln said you "cannot fool all of the people all of the time", but he certainly managed to do it. You are one of those people who remained fooled, because you probably had no knowledge of the Corwin Amendment.

Most of what you've been taught about the war is a lie and a misdirection. The war was about money, not slavery, else the government of the USA would not have offered up permanent slavery in an effort to get the money producing Southern states to give up secession.

[PIF]

Doris Kearns Goodwin is a socialist historian.

—
And was once accused of plagiarism.

[PIF]

By including the fake and the traitor in ‘documentaries’ about Lincoln and others, they are silently equating those two with the subject.

[LS]

True until mid -1862. Then he came to realize that the ONLY way to save the Union was to eliminate slavery, for the Confederacy’s sole purpose in existence was to protect slavery, and 2/3 of the South’s population was feeding and arming the 1/2 who were fighting.

Superb new book on the leadup to war and the war itself by Oakes, “Freedom National,” who showed how northern abolitionists figured out (correctly) that the Constitution doesn’t mention slaves, only unfree PERSONS, and that by emphasizing the personhood of slaves they could end it OR force the South to go to war to defend slavery, when they could end it.

They had a brilliant plan.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I missed the first 1/2 hr or so (too busy with dishes), while my family watched.

Didn’t hear that. Definitely they have at least 3 blacks - 2 women at least - putting their spin on it.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Incidentally, that is a popular myth now - “built on the backs of slaves”. Just like the pyramids! LOL (Of course they also like to say THEY were the Egyptians.)

Anyway, don’t you think the entire “working-class” mantra of “built in US” because it was literally built in the US lays the foundation for this view? I mean, we have been conditioned - by unions, which are by nature socialist - into thinking it’s all about the “working” man. That literal manual labor is the important thing.

In truth, who THOUGHT and PLANNED and DESIGNED is the real linchpin of progress, not mere “building”. Nothing would’ve been built without someone having an idea and feasible plans.

The union myth leads to this new-found pride (sort of) that (black) slaves are the real drivers of progress here.

[walkingdead]

“Jackson was right to kill the bank. It was the camel’s nose in the tent for corrupt influence on the government.“

Absolutely. I cannot remember who said the following: “Give me the control of a countries money supply and I care not who runs the country.”

[DiogenesLamp]

Propaganda. Slavery was legal in the Union, and remained legal in the Northern states until 8 months after the war was over.

Lincoln urged the passage of the Corwin amendment which would have guaranteed slavery indefinitely.

Those who believe the war was about slavery have been successfully fooled by the propaganda apparatus of the DC rulers.

The war was about money that would be lost to the powerful industrialists of the North if the South seceded.

It was about nothing other than that threatened loss of money to the crony capitalists of that era.

[the OlLine Rebel]

That is an interesting set of information.

(Sorry, I speak as a casual history fan, esp. concerning ACW politics.)

[Joe 6-pack]

"That wan thin pecker-nosed actor wasn’t anything like Washington (nor was fat Jeff Bridges), especially since Barry Bostwick stamped himself in my mind for 30 years."

IMHO, the best media portrayal of Washington was by David Morse in the HBO, "John Adams," mini-series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6caJv__WSM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5wCl3aAMEQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBh_ze7-UXg

[Reily]

Agree! Morse did the best job to date of portraying Washington.

I did like the 1984 TV miniseries on Washington. Bostwik’s Washington was at the time the best of a lot of bad portrayals.

I was NOT impressed with the writing of that miniseries! Exampe consider,
it's portrayal of Washington's trip to give the Dinwiddie’s warning was poorly done to the French. Why was one of the key figures in the trip Christopher Gist left out and fictionalized in an almost comic fashion by the character played by Lloyd Bridges? It really really detracted from the overall quality of the series!

[Joe 6-pack]

There were some liberties taken with the miniseries, to be sure, and while it fell short on the history, I think it was a pretty fair character study of John and his relationship with Abigail (and Laura Linney knocked it out of the park with her portrayal).

I loved the delicious irony of Tom Wilkinson playing Ben Franklin, when not too many years earlier, he played Cornwallis in Mel Gibson's, "Patriot," and nailed both roles!

[Reily]

I liked the Adams miniseries also.

I was griping about the 1984 Washington TV series.

There was a Washington portrayal I forgot about. The portrayal in Turn. I didn’t think it was bad. Morse was better.