Posted on 09/25/2007 8:30:06 PM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Sally Field wins an Emmy and suddenly everyone wants to 'really, really like her' again. Fresh off her controversial appearance on the Emmys, when she won for Brothers & Sisters, Sally Field has been cast as Mary Todd Lincoln, the wife of Abraham Lincoln, in Steven Spielberg's long-awaited biopic of one of the most important leaders of all time. Liam Neeson has already been cast as Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln bases on Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Steven Spielberg's Lincoln will center on the life of the leader in the time leading up to the Civil War as he inspired the troops of the North to fight. As E! reports, Liam Neeson has been attached to the project since way back in 2005, when it looked like Spielberg might do the flick between Munich and War of the Worlds. But the film has been postponed a number of times due to casting and scheduling conflicts. With the casting of Sally Field, Steven Spielberg's Lincoln is closer to actually happening than ever before.
Now, of course, Steven Spielberg is filming a little movie called Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, so Lincoln will have to wait. That film will be released May 22, 2008 and Spielberg has a history of doing one big summer movie and one "serious" winter movie. Jurassic Park and Schindler's List both came out in 1993 and War of the Worlds and Munich dropped in 2005. Don't be at all surprised if Spielberg drops Indiana Jones 4 and Lincoln in 2008. E! does note however that it could be tough to start Lincoln with Sally Field's Brothers & Sisters schedule. It may have to wait until her summer hiatus, but Spielberg could still get it out before the end of next year. Lincoln reteams Spielberg with Neeson from Schindler's List and Tony Kushner, the writer of Munich. It's got Oscar bait written all over it.
The 60-year-old Sally Field has a long history in television and film, recently finishing an arc on ER and being a series regular and Emmy winner now on Brothers & Sisters. Sally Field has been nominated for an Oscar twice and won both times for 1979's Norma Rae and 1984's Places in the Heart.
I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.
Judge all in this time period, in this crisis, by the society they inhabited. Only then, can you really understand why they took the positions they did. Too many black and white judgements are made against the leaders and men on both sides of this issue.
How are you doing, Bubba Ho-Tep?
I would like to add one more thing to this thread. I like Sally Fields. I think she is a terrific actress and will do a great job as Mary Todd Lincoln. Spielberg’s casting is spot on.
That is very true, of course. Too bad most Founders aren’t extended the same courtesy - “don’t judge them based on the norm of the time”.
Fred Douglass was a great man, and very perceptive and forgiving, if you will. Much different from his self-acclaimed descendents of the likes of “the reverend Jackson”.
But when taken in context, including the parts where Lincoln states his belief that blacks were entitled the many of the same rights as white men and his consistent opposition to slavery, Lincoln's views are still very progressive for his times, and far ahead of the views on the subject of any Southern leader you care to name.
Not at all. I'm just correcting 4CJ who has obviously mistaken Abraham Lincoln with one of the early members of the Klan. Or was making a lame attempt at a slur, I'm not sure which. His suggestion that Lincoln might be at home as a Klan member is obviously ridiculous. Lincoln was for freedom for blacks while the Klan was not. Lincoln was for black sufferage while the Klan was not. In fact I imagine that just about the entire surviving confederate leadership would be more comfortable in hoods and robes than Abraham Lincoln would have.
But, IMHO, you do you own arguments a great disservice to resort to the "so's your mother" argument. Forrest does not deserve your shot no more than Lincoln deserved the other poster's shot.
One day, (and I am not holding my breath)on Free Republic, will be able to debate the contribution these men made without agendas. Won't that be a happy day.
Have a great day!
But 4CJ took the shot. And I responded in kind. Had he not then I would not have mentioned Forrest at all. And if you want to criticize me for stooping to his level and fighting him in his gutter with his tactics then so be it. It might have been more effective if you had chosen to take us both to task, would it not?
I can hear her now... "I'm not talking about 4CJ. I'm talking about you. If 4CJ jumped off a building, would you?"
I'm not really criticizing you. I have seen you employ the "so's your mother" argument quite frequently, and just wondered why, with your education and your ability to really frame an argument, you would stoop to such a lame tactic.
If you think I am criticizing you, please accept my apologies. I was really wanting to know why you did it.
He was the John Murtha of his time.
You are grasping at straws aren't you.
I was simply pointing out that based on his own words he would fit into the Klan. Not that I have personal knowledge of such, nor am I stating that Lincoln was a member. Simply pointing out the utter hypocrisy of posters that denigrate Confederates while venerating Lincoln despite his racial positions.
His suggestion that Lincoln might be at home as a Klan member is obviously ridiculous.
And the modern Klan believes in white superiority (Lincoln's agreement documented above), and racial separation (Lincoln's agreement documented above).
Lincoln was for freedom for blacks while the Klan was not.
Freedom in another country, but not in the republic. Lincoln certainly never fought to end black laws in Illinois, nor did he fight for black equality and amalgamation - he fought against such.
In fact I imagine that just about the entire surviving confederate leadership would be more comfortable in hoods and robes than Abraham Lincoln would have.
Jefferson Davis' overseer was black, with his slaves having their own court system - Lincoln never instituted such a system, he simply paid black soldiers less. Forrest freed his slaves and they fought beside him - Lincoln wanted blacks to be slaves servants and not troops, although later he did allow them to be used as cannon fodder. As a reward for their service Lincoln again yearned to reward them with an all-expense paid trip to Panama.
Lincoln's opposition to the war was well known. If the shoe fits ...
I don't know. But attitudes do tend to ebb and flow. Charles Beard in 1913 or Richard Hofstadter in 1948 were a lot more cynical about the Founders than most Americans are now.
It's noteworthy how the average American's attitude towards Washington, Lincoln, the Pilgrims and the rest of our history remained consistently positive while our population changed in the early and middle twentieth century. We went from being a country composed predominantly of Northern European Protestants to one with varied religions and roots all over Europe without spurning the nation's founders.
It's only in the last thirty years or so, that the picture has gotten ugly. A lot has changed in post-Vietnam America. I don't know whether the children of today's immigrants will carry on the older tradition. But the way that the children of Italian, Polish, Jewish, and other immigrants turned out is reassuring.
I think the country does still have much assimilative force. It's not felt as strongly in classrooms, but consider the History Channel. It gives rather a different view of our past than one would have gotten in school fifty years ago, but still, it's programs do make one proud to be an American, even a White and male American.
Every thing could still collapse, though, so I don't know the answer. But while I'm thinking over your question, let me ask you a few.
How are the Confederate Battle Flag, Jeff Davis, and Nathan Bedford Forrest going to change any of this? If things are going to hell in a handbasket, what good does the Confederate cult do us?
Indeed, how is tying George Washington and the Constitution to the Confederacy going to keep them dear to Americans? Wouldn't it have the reverse effect, especially if the country is changing in the ways you say it is?
For that matter, if you're concerned about Lincoln's reputation how is adopting the Confederate cult going to make Americans think better of him?
So I guess Fremont was the one who got that odd 692 votes cast in the 1864 election, huh? 1864 Election Results
Are you sure you're not thinking of 1856?
I wasn't aware that the founders, like Jefferson Davis, believed in conficatory taxes, trampling state's rights by extending state militia enlistments for the duration of the war without approval of the state governments, seizing farm produce without compensation 'for the war effort', forcing private ship owners to devote large percentage of their cargo capacity for government cargo without compensation 'for the war effort', conscripting slave labor without compensation 'for the war effort', ignoring the constitution when convenient, nationalizing industries like salt and liquor, protecting slave imports in the constitution, and oh yeah, starting wars without approval of Congress.
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.