It's because your brain is not wired to deal with facts & logic, only with your own lunatic Lost Cause narratives.
Faced with real facts and honest logic, all you can do is skedaddle for the hills, all the while hollering: "I won, I won, I won!!"
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 ...
And this is why I don’t read your long messages anymore.
It's because your brain is not wired to deal with facts & logic, only with your own lunatic Lost Cause narratives.
Faced with real facts and honest logic, all you can do is skedaddle for the hills, all the while hollering: "I won, I won, I won!!"
The fact is that you cannot deal with any facts & logic (real or alleged) if you disagree with them.
What you can do, we see here -- handwave them away, then declare yourself "winner" who "whipped" something.
In reality, you "whipped" nothing ever, only keep repeating the lost cause narrative that's now fried into your brain.
Almost forgot to reply to this.
So what happened to that 10 million they put into subsidizing the Baltic's company? Did it end up in the water with no one getting any value for it, or did it employ sailors, carpenters, mechanics, banks, and all the support structure for that company and other companies?
That 10 million went into the Northern infrastructure in both people and equipment.
Did the South get a 10 million dollar cash dump during that same period?
Generally I find that if you put any facts into your posts, they are usually obscured by mountains of blather so that they are hard to find.
And a lot of times when you find them, they aren't really relevant.
First of all, “The North” did not get the money. A company did. And there was absolutely no reason a company in the South could not have gotten that money other than the fact that it was safer to invest in land and slaves in the South rather than ships and sailors.
You have some bizarre ways of.looking at things and excusing Southern slave owners and treason. I’m not saying the North was perfect, but they were a far sight better than the reprobates you defend.
In the North. The congress moved 7.2 million from the South, and gave it to people in the North.
A company did. And there was absolutely no reason a company in the South could not have gotten that money other than the fact that it was safer to invest in land and slaves in the South rather than ships and sailors.
If you hadn't taxed it out of them, the South would have kept 7.2 million of that money. It was already theirs, and congress transferred it to a Northern region.
You have some bizarre ways of.looking at things and excusing Southern slave owners and treason.
Well firstly, it wasn't "Treason." In fact, nobody was charged with "Treason." It was in fact *THEIR RIGHT* to have independence, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
As for "excusing Southern slave owners", I make no excuses for them. I am aware and acknowledge that it was legal since the nation's founding, and that all the states agreed to join a Union that was a known slave holding Union. Almost every state was a slave state in 1787. A lot of Northern states, which made *HUGE PROFITS* on slavery when they were transporting slaves, found that slaves were of little use to them in Northern climates, and in fact, were more trouble than they were worth.
When I was young, I believed the Northern states gave up slavery because it was the morally right thing to do.
I now realize how naive I was. They gave them up because they were of little value, and far too much trouble. They then put on airs about how moral they were for giving up something that wasn't of much value to them, and condemned those people further South for not doing the same.
But the point is, slavery was legal in the United States, the Congress voted to further protect slavery in 1861, so anyone who thinks the war is about slavery is just brainwashed by the war propaganda from that era.
The North didn't invade because of slavery. They invaded because the South was cutting off 72% of their federal income, and too many Northern companies had become addicted to that money.
You are absolutely nuts. You have had it explained to you dozens of times that the vast majority of taxes were paid in the north yet you continue to insist that the poor old plantation owners paid all the taxes. You are certifiable.
It has been *ASSERTED*, but the evidence shows that is misleading to the point of being completely wrong.
Yes, the taxes were collected and paid in the North, but the material upon which such taxes were collected, were payment for goods 72% of which came from the South.
The South was providing 72% of all revenue, even though the taxes were collected mostly in New York city.
You don't understand how the packet shipping system worked, and you should really learn about that if you wish to further discuss the matter.
“The North only produced 28% of the trade with Europe, the South produced the other 72%, yet all the money ends up in Boston and New York!
I post that map every time I want to show people how much money the North was getting from the South.
The Civil war was fought to keep that money flowing from the South into the wealthy pockets in the North.
The war had nothing to do with slavery, and absolutely everything to do with that money.”
BINGO!
The war was about cutting ties with the Yankee north that was culturally/politically opposite to the south.
No… you're nuts. There is no evidence that shows anything other than the fact that you are nuts. Your slave master heroes didn't pay all the taxes.
The north beat up on the south in congress and made laws that disparaged the south. No on except the elites in the south wanted slavery. They saw slavery as taking their jobs.
They paid 72% of the taxes. That's why the nation wanted to keep them.
If you think it was because of slavery, you are naive. They wanted those states to remain in the Union so they could keep getting that money. It's simple human greed. Nothing moral about it.
Again, you are nuts. There was no tax on exports. The planters were not paid in British pounds. They were paid in dollars by the Cotton Factors who actually sold the crop. Those Factors moslty represented Northern banks. Your beloved slave driving planters paid little or no tax, and again I say without a doubt, you are nuts!
I am actually surprised. You did enough research to learn that much. Good for you! You might have learned that the North completely controlled the cotton trade. Because they did.
But you still don't understand economics. A tax on imports is virtually the same thing as a tax on exports. It's the same value being taxed whether it is exchanged for profit, or the profit taxed.
Same stuff.
.
Knock it off you jerk.. You now play the intellectually superior instructor to the poor lowly student. You are an ass. And you are nuts.
I've known for years how the cotton business worked in the South. BroJoeK provided links years ago which showed the North actually controlled the cotton industry. (Which is why they were making so much profit from it.)
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.