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.
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.