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 ...
Contracts made under duress are not valid. But saying agree with this amendment or you will not be readmitted to the Union is not duress. Just a few years earlier those same folks said screw the constitution and all the promises we made.
Duress would be “agree with this or we'll hang your treasonous ass”. That’s duress. ;~))
Got any more fables?
Aren't your own enough for you?
In a discussion about revenue lost due to Southern secession, here is Lincoln himself saying it is "fifty or sixty million."
"Well,’ said he, ‘what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?’ Said I, ‘Sir, how much do you expect to collect in a year?’-Said he, ‘Fifty or sixty millions.’ ‘Why sir,’ said I, ‘four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary; but I do not believe that it will be necessary, because I believe that you can settle it on the basis I suggest.’ ”
So let me get this straight. You think they fought a bloody war for years to protect slavery, and all the North had to do was ask, and they would give it up?
You seriously believe that?
Well you need to look up the history of the 13th amendment. Turns out the guys who fought to preserve slavery were for the most part not in the Southern state legislatures then. It was the reconstructionist Republican legislatures who approved that amendment. Some states like Mississippi never ratified it.
He was talking about the whole nation, not just the South. You have this South good guys and North bad guys view of history. Lincoln was looking at the nation. If the South refused to pay tariffs, why would the North continue paying them. You seem to think the South should have been able to do anything they wanted and what ever the North wanted was bad. That’s a childish way of looking at history, but not surprising.
If you look at the newspapers of the time and the different acts passed by Congress, it is pretty clear that the northern manufacturing companies controlled Congress. They passed acts and tariffs that were in their best interests and economically punished the agricultural south.
Then the slavery factor lent a veneer of moral superiority. It was okay to dislike/distrust/abuse the south...they enslaved human beings! Forget the fact that less than 3% of the population owned slaves...the south was evil!
You can only poke the bear so many times until you get some claws and teeth. Economically abused and disparaged, the south wanted autonomy. The north did not have the best interests of the farmers in the south at heart.
Mom’s side of the family is mostly from the south...related to the Lees of Virginia. Dad’s side of the family is mostly from the north with ties to the Buchannans. Funny, we never had any get togethers with BOTH sides of the family...
So what was the war about?
That is not how I see things.
And remember those newspaper accounts I mentioned before? They make this very point. If the South doesn't have to pay the duties, the North wouldn't either. They said the South's refusal to pay them meant the duties have effectively been repealed for the whole nation.
Which is one of the things the South wanted, but didn't have the power in Congress to enact.
But even the Northern states knew that if the duties were kept high, the trade would move to port cities where the tariffs were low.
Between 1832 and the Civil War, tariff policy fluctuated between high tariffs and low tariffs. Between 1832 and 1842, there was a gradual reduction in tariffs, only to be followed by a strongly protectionist period to 1846. The Tariff Act of 1846 reduced tariffs, and tariffs were again reduced by the Tariff Act of 1857.
(U.S. Federal Government Revenues: 1790 to the Present September 25, 2006, Thomas L. Hungerford Specialist in Public Sector Economics Government and Finance Division)
So, with tariffs reduced in 1846 and again in 1857, how can it credibly be claimed that tariffs were the reason for secession? Might the preservation of slavery be the reason, just as Southerners said at the time?
This may be new ground for you, but i've trodden it many times.
"Tariffs" is just one component of the overall sh*t sandwich the South had to eat. The "Navigation act of 1817" was another. It disallowed the South from using foreign shipping and left the North with a virtual monopoly on shipping with which they charged exorbitant rates. Additionally, the tariffs were protectionist in nature, thereby compelling Southerners to buy Northern products, which also built up the North's economy at the expense of their own. Then there were subsidies for Northern industry. Ditto was kind enough to point out that the Shipping company that built "The Baltic" got 10 million dollars over a 10 year period. That money went to the North.
I have read in some of the links BroJoeK previously provided that 60% of the total profit from slavery went to the North. The North was making more money from slavery than the South!
So it's not just "tariffs." It's the entire economic and legal posture of the North towards the South, and the fact the South couldn't do anything about it because of the North's larger population allowing them to outvote the much smaller Southern representation in Congress. (Which is the only thing the "expansion of slavery" scare tactic was ever about.)
And I do not doubt the constant and often obnoxious moral preaching from the North at the South also led them to wanting out.
Might the preservation of slavery be the reason, just as Southerners said at the time?
As has been pointed out several times, all they had to do to get that was to remain in the Union.
Why didn't the South industrialize? Was it because of the Navigation Act or because the North was mean to them? No, slavery and plantation crops -- especially cotton -- were so lucrative that that they drew capital and entrepreneurial effort away from industrial development. The North did not oppress the South. The South preferred to develop their slavery dependent agrarian economy instead.
As for the S.S. Baltic, the point of the Congressional subsidy was to compete with the British Cunard line on the Atlantic run, not to compete with Southern shipping lines.
Then we are back pre Constitution where the national government had zero ability to do anything. Is that what you think is best?
But even the Northern states knew that if the duties were kept high, the trade would move to port cities where the tariffs were low.
The tariff rate in 1860 was the lowest it had even been. The lowest. That is not what caused the war. When the Confederates congress enacted their own tariffs, they were basically at the same rate.
Don’t know why. Buchanan and Lee pretty much were on the same side even though Buchanan was from Pennsylvania.
You do realize that is a theory? They could have bought steam engines from England, but the existing tariff system made that more expensive and difficult. They did in fact commission the English to build them ships, and of course England was caught at it, and had to cancel the order. (during the war.)
Why didn't the South industrialize?
In context, this question proceeds under the premise that your theory stated above, is correct. We haven't conceded that point yet.
No, slavery and plantation crops -- especially cotton -- were so lucrative that that they drew capital and entrepreneurial effort away from industrial development.
And if that's true, don't most people put their money into what seems to them to be the most likely return on investment?
The North did not oppress the South. The South preferred to develop their slavery dependent agrarian economy instead.
So I have been told repeatedly, but in my course of learning about the civil war, I have found that much of what I had been told about the civil war turned out to be inaccurate and often misleading. I know this claim is a regular talking point among those that want to exonerate what the North did in invading the South. It is a variation of "they deserved it for wearing their skirt too short."
As for the S.S. Baltic, the point of the Congressional subsidy was to compete with the British Cunard line on the Atlantic run, not to compete with Southern shipping lines.
But 10 million dollars still ended up in some Northern port somewhere, didn't it?
I think both sides had valid points, but this is a very good example of the "Tyranny of the Majority."
The South thought the laws were unfair, but as the North benefited, and had the majority, they just didn't care what the South thought.
The tariff rate in 1860 was the lowest it had even been. The lowest. That is not what caused the war. When the Confederates congress enacted their own tariffs, they were basically at the same rate.
The South had been trying to secede since the 1820s, and their major complaint was always economic during that time period. I think the realization that Liberals had won control of the government to the extent that they did convinced them that more trouble was on the way, even if it was at the moment, temporarily lessened.
The “ South” was not at all a democracy. It was ruled entirely by the aristocratic elite in the Deep South. The fact that in the North, people who opposed slavery, even if they were in the minority, were able to exist, drove them nuts. The aristocrats did not tolerate disagreements. And like you, they believed their own BS about King Cotton. It’s a damn shame that 700,00 men from both sides had to die, but that is how history works. It can be very ugly.
All of your posts are misleading and wrong, but I still enjoy the opportunity to point out exactly how & where, because I believe that even someone as misguided and delusional as DiogenesLamp deserves the opportunity for a good education. ;-)
Everything you've said is just propaganda you've been taught.
Whatever the deep South was, it had a right to leave if it wanted. It's mistake was not leaving in 1787. The Democracy thing where huge multitudes in the North could vote themselves money out of other people's pockets, was a bad situation for them to join.
Your short posts where you don’t say anything relevant are also no good.
Whatever. Tell me this. Without looking it up, who did South Carolina vote for President in the 1860 election. Should be easy right.
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.